Europeans broadly satisfied with their lives, but...........

Brussels, 2 February 2010

Europeans broadly satisfied with their lives, but survey highlights concerns over the future of the economic and social situation

Europeans are on average broadly satisfied with their personal situation, but less satisfied when it comes to the economy, public services and social policies in their country, according to an opinion survey released today. The Eurobarometer on the social climate in the EU also found large differences between countries, with people in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands generally most satisfied with their personal situation. The survey forms part of the European Commission's Social Situation Report, also released today, which examines social trends in Europe, this year focusing on housing.

"It is comforting that despite the difficult economic situation, most Europeans remain satisfied with their lives, although there is some apprehension about the future," said Vladimír Špidla, EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. "Today's report shows once again the importance of our efforts to promote jobs and growth in Europe so as to guarantee people's social well-being in the future. We must continue these efforts as part of our future 2020 strategy to make the EU a smarter and greener social market economy."

According to the Eurobarometer survey, a majority of Europeans are satisfied with life in general, giving an average score of +3.2 points (on a scale of -10 to +10). But there are big differences between Member States: the highest level of satisfaction was reported in Denmark, (+8.0), with Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland also having high levels. The lowest levels of satisfaction were reported in Bulgaria (-1.9), followed by Hungary, Greece and Romania.

When it comes to public services, Europeans are on average quite dissatisfied with the way their public administrations are run (-1.2 points). In every country, apart from Luxembourg and Estonia, Europeans feel that this has worsened over the last five years and expect it to continue to get worse (in all countries except Luxembourg).

When asked about specific public policies, Europeans are broadly satisfied with healthcare provision (+1.3 points), with people in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg most satisfied (over +5 points) and those in Bulgaria, Greece and Romania least satisfied (-3 points or less).

Europeans were most dissatisfied with the way inequalities and poverty are addressed in their country (-2 points). Only respondents in Luxembourg and the Netherlands awarded a positive score, while respondents in Latvia and Hungary were the most strongly dissatisfied (-5 points or worse).

Housing

The European Commission's latest annual Social Situation Report shows that Europeans now spend more of their income on housing costs than they did ten years ago (almost 4 percentage points more), while mortgage debt has increased sharply across the EU.

On average, Europeans spend one-fifth of their disposable income on accommodation. Rent and mortgage payments only make up 30% of total housing costs in the EU while the other 70% pays for repairs, maintenance and fuel. Following housing privatisation, most people living in countries from the central and eastern EU Member States own their own homes, and charges for repairs, maintenance and fuel make up around 90% of total housing costs.

The report also looks at quality of housing and finds that many Europeans report living in sub-standard accommodation and that more people on low incomes report housing problems.

Social impacts of the crisis

While it is still too early to assess the full social impact of the crisis, the report investigates what lessons may be learned from the experience of past recessions. It shows that social expenditure has played a role in protecting those affected during recessions but that the likelihood that an unemployed person will receive income support varies across the EU.

Background

The Special Eurobarometer survey on the social climate is the first in a series of annual surveys to monitor European citizens' subjective well-being and was conducted in May-June 2009 among citizens in the 27 EU Member States. It asks people their opinions about their personal situation, the national economic and social situation, and their feelings about policies of their governments in various areas, including health care and pensions.

The Social Situation Report is an annual report by the European Commission that takes a closer look at long-term social trends in the EU in order to provide up-to-date, reliable and comprehensive information on the social situation. This year, it focuses on two key issues in public policy: housing (including ownership status and costs), and the possible effects of the recession including results from the Eurobarometer survey on social climate.

MEMO/10/27

For more information:

Special Eurobarometer survey on the social situation

Full report

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_315_en.pdf

Summary

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_315_sum_en.pdf

European Commission Social Situation Report

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=675&langId=en

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/114&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Norway Time Hole "Leak" Plunges Northern Hemisphere Into Chaos

Norway Time Hole "Leak" Plunges Northern Hemisphere Into Chaos

Written by (Author ) World Jan 8, 2010

Russian scientists are reporting to Prime Minister Putin today that the high-energy beam fired into the upper heavens from the United States High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) radar facility in Ramfjordmoen, Norway this past month has resulted in a "catastrophic puncturing" of our Plant's thermosphere thus allowing into the troposphere an "unimpeded thermal  inversion" of the exosphere, which is the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere.

To the West's firing of this 'quantum' high-energy beam we had previously reported on in our December 10, 2009 report titled "Attack On Gods 'Heaven' Lights Up Norwegian Sky".

To how catastrophic for our Planet this massive thermal inversion has been Anthony Nunan, an assistant general manager for risk management at Mitsubishi Corporation in Tokyo, is reporting today that the entire Northern Hemisphere is in winter chaos, with the greatest danger from this unprecedented Global event being the destruction of billions of dollars worth of crops in a World already nearing the end of its ability to feed its self.

So powerful has this thermal inversion become that reports from the United States are stating that their critical crops of strawberries, oranges, and other fruits and vegetables grown in their Southern States, are being destroyed by record cold temperatures. The US is further reporting record amounts of snowfall in what they are now warning may be their worst winter in 25 years.

Reports from the United Kingdom today are, likewise, showing a Nation in chaos as brutal cold temperatures continue to batter the British people suffering under the worst snow blizzards to hit them in almost 50 years. So dire has it become in the UK that their National Grid yesterday issued only its second warning in its entire history stating that their Nation's gas supply was running out due to this unprecedented event.

Not just to the UK, but also to the entire European Union has this thermal inversion been affecting as reports from that region show continued chaos is occurring due to plunging temperatures and snows. In the UK, also, reports are showing that the military has been called out to rescue over 1,000 stranded vehicles.

Though the Motherland, and its people, are some of the best equipped in the World to handle such severe winter conditions, the Russian island of Sakhalin was inundated this past week by a rare Snow Cyclone setting off no less than avalanches.

But to the worst affected region of the Northern Hemisphere no one has been hit harder than China, where in what is being described as a "soul-destroying snowstorm" this Asian Nation has been plunged into such havoc the entire country has been brought to a standstill. China further reports that the massive snowstorms hitting them are their worst in 60 years and necessitating their military forces to save over 1,400 people trapped when their train became covered in snow. So overwhelmed by this unprecedented event has China become that they have ordered all of their citizens to help with snow removal too.

South Korea has not been spared either as reports from that Nation are reporting their worst snow storms in their modern history of recording these events.

Reports from Japan are also reporting record snowfall in their Northern Regions, where according to one unnamed Kushiro resident, "Snow falls hard here in Kushiro, but this is the most I have ever seen. The snow's piling up and we're running out of places to dump it."

Canada, another Nation used to extreme winter events, reports that the storm that had hit their maritime provinces this past week was so powerful buildings were knocked off of their foundations in what one resident, Tom Jardine, described as being "worse than a hurricane".

To the long-term consequences of this thermal inversion caused by the West, these reports further warn that by the puncturing of our atmosphere by the HHARP radars our Planet has, also, been "needlessly exposed" to the growing threat posed to us by the giant mysterious object currently approaching us (named by NASA as G1.9) which we had previously reported on in our January 3rd report titled "Russia Prepares For Asteroid Strike As New Comet Nears Sun", and which has been blamed for the rapid shifting of our Earth's North Pole that was first documented in 2005.

But to the most critical aspect of these events it surely lies with the Western World's continued arrogance in regards to experimenting on both our Planets natural species and human beings, and though who may think that they are 'gods', are continuing to give evidence that they are acting more like devils.

http://www.daily.pk/norway-time-hole-%E2%80%9Cleak%E2%80%9D-plunges-northern-hemisphere-into-chaos-14311/

 

DISCLAIMER: Pakistan Daily News does not necessarily agree witht he views set forth by the Author of this article.

 

Large mineral reserves exist in Albania and Kosovo

 

Large mineral reserves exist in Albania and Kosovo worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

• Created by Sahit Muja

The potential in minerals in Albania and Kosovo is more than anyone has ever imagined. This would create a powerful economic growth in Albania, Kosovo and the entire Balkans

The price of metals was up again , helped by the recent good news on US manufacturing and the US gross national product.

March copper was up a cent to $3.09 per pound in New York trade, while three-month contracts for the metal added $29 to $6,820 per tonne on the London Metal Exchange. price of ferro chrome is up 10% this month.

Among other base metals, zinc added about $15 to around $2,160 per tonne in London, while aluminium was up $35 to $2,120 per tonne, lead was $73 higher to $2,118 per tonne and tin and nickel each added $300 on the session, to $16,450 per tonne and $18,,300 per tonne respectively.

Precious metals were higher in New York trade as April gold added $13 to $1,118 per troy ounce, March silver was up $8 cents to $16.74 per troy ounce, and April platinum gained $39.50 to $1,578.80 per troy ounce.Large mineral reserves exist in Albania and Kosovo worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The most significant in Kosovo is coal deposits largest in Europe, gold, silver, arsenic, thallium, bismuth and iron. types of Pb and Zn and other metals .

In Albania there are large deposits of chrome ore, bauxite,copper,nickel, quartz,magnesium,cobalt. In the last two years huge explorations have taken place in Northern Albania, especially Tropoje and Kukes. According to Albanian Minerals & Bytyci Shpk engineer geologist , there have been 100 new locations of chrome ore in Tropoje.

Recently huge deposits of chrome ore have been found in . Vlad, Pac, Zogaj, Kam, and Lugu i Zi.The body of this large chrome ore extends a hundred kilometers long from Lugu i Zi, Tropoje to Vlahen, Kukes and 50 miles wide from Zogaj to Tpla,Tropoje. Albanian Minerals and Bytyci Shpk has intensified exploration and started mining in Zogaj, Pac, and Vlad.

According to Italian and American engineers, working for Albanian Minerals and Bytyci Shpk this huge area from Tropoje to Kukes my have more than 500 million tons of chrome ore. New geological surveys and chemical results done by Albanian Minerals have shown an amazing amount of minerals in Northern Albania and Kosovo. There are also large amounts of magnesium and nickel.

The Albanian government has done an amazing job building roads where minerals are found. The value of already discovered minerals in Albania and Kosovo exceeds 100 billion dollars as a raw material. Albanian Minerals in New York has increased the work done in building infrastructure and amount of money invested and is planning to triple the amount of investments in the region.

We have created a partnership and joint venture with the worlds largest business to business marketing companies. The potential in minerals in Albania and Kosovo is more than anyone has ever imagined. This would create a powerful economic growth in Albania, Kosovo and the entire Balkans.

Albania's economic growth over the last four years has been higher than at any time in the last 100 years - with projected growth for 2010 the highest in the Europe - due to a series of government initiatives in recent years that have helped Albania to cope with the impact of the world recession.

Albanian economy has been able to progress despite a number of significant shocks in the world's economy
Albanian GDP growth has averaged 10% percent annually. Projected GDP growth for 2010 is the highest in the Europe and follows its peak growth rate in 2007-2008.

The Albanian economy has done very well under Prime Minister Sali Berisha, and government policy has been key. These economic gains are a big part of the reason he win re-election in 2009. Billions of dollars are currently being invested in all sectors.

Mr Berisha has doubled the budget, raised salaries, lifted Albanians from the poverty line and done an amazing job on the education system. Albanian tourism and investments is flourishing.Albania recently witnessed an impressive growth in tourism this year.

The government of Albania announced that there was a 42 percent increase in the number of tourists visiting the country compared to last year. With new hotels, resorts, bars and restaurants, the Albanian private sector in tourism has been growing an average of 30 percent for five years.

The Albanian economy had the best growth in Europe last year, and this trend is expected to continue this year as well. Foreign investments in Albania have increased 59 percent in 2009.

The Albanian government under Prime Minister Berisha, has created an excellent environment to attract investors to Albania. Special emphasis was paid on constructions of roads and improving infrastructure. The efforts on improving the legal system to protect investors also proved significant. Also that many Western European companies have chosen to escape the high taxes in Europe by investing in Albania as the latter offers the best tax system in Europe with a 10 percent flat tax

Albania is one of the wealthiest lands in natural resources per square mile in the world. With amazing mountains, beaches, lakes, rivers, forests, and rich soil. Underneath this land lies billions of prooven barrels of oil, natural gas, gold, platinum, copper, the largest chrome reserves in Europe, bauxite, nickel, cobalt, magnesium, ores, marbel, granite,coal and much more. Albania is rapidly building its infrastructure.

Albania In the near future it will be the only country in the world to produce 100% of its energy from Hydropower, Windpower and Solar Power. Billions of dollars are being invested there presently. This almost free enviermently friendly energy will create opportunities to mine and process billions of tons of minerals. Albania was one of the countries in the Europe with economic growth and real estate appreciation in 2009

 


http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/economy-large-mineral-reserves-east-europe-795/topics/large-mineral-reserves-exist-albania

 

Blair’s Monstrous Consistency

Blair's Monstrous Consistency

Posted on January 30th, 2010 by Daniel Larison

But the failure to achieve a second, explicit, U.N. resolution was a political problem, not a legal obstacle. Few of the anti-war movement care to recall that the Kosovan War was, if anything, predicated upon a flimsier legal case than the Iraqi intervention. ~Alex Massie

 

One of the reasons why I keep revisiting the illegality and immorality of the intervention in Kosovo long after most people have forgotten about it is precisely because so many opponents of the Iraq war don't want to acknowledge that Kosovo was every bit as unjustifiable and wrong as Iraq was. By endorsing the war in Kosovo even now, as Obama did again in Oslo, many opponents of the Iraq war have opened themselves up to the attack that Iraq hawks were using from the beginning. If someone pointed out that invading Iraq would violate international law and not have U.N. sanction, the hawks would throw the precedent of Kosovo in his face. Unless he was a principled progressive or antiwar conservative, the opponent of the invasion was always at a loss to respond. If invading Iraq was based on phony or exaggerated intelligence about WMDs, Kosovo was based on lies about preventing genocide and protecting human rights. Unless you are among the fairly small percentage that opposed both, the odds are that you are outraged over invading Iraq in inverse proportion to how outraged you were over bombing Serbia.

Inexplicably, Kosovo is remembered across much of the spectrum, especially the center-left, as a great success, despite having been disastrous for the very people it was supposed to help and despite being based on lies every bit as blatant and outrageous as the invasion of Iraq. As it hapened, Blair was Prime Minister during Britain's participation in both wars of aggression. As far back as 1999, he has been the chief proponent of liberal interventionism aimed at subverting the normal protections of international law afforded to sovereign states, and he continues to be an outspoken advocate for killing foreigners for their own benefit. What is disheartening about all this is not just that Blair will never be held to account for his responsibility for the war in Iraq, but that he has never had to answer for or defend his decision to support an unprovoked, unnecessary war of aggression against Serbia.

Even though the air war led to the expulsions of Albanians from Kosovo it was meant to prevent, and even though the "negotiations" at Rambouillet involved delivering an intolerable ultimatum designed to start a war, this criminal operation continues to enjoy support or indifference from most Westerners. There were no allied casualties, and the war was brief, so there was little time for the publics in NATO nations to grow weary and disgusted with their criminal leaders. The war was over relatively quickly, so the media lost interest in the false atrocity stories that the Clinton administration used in its war propaganda, and the previous decade of constant anti-Serb coverage made the public receptive to whatever lies the administration wanted to tell.

What I can say about Blair is that he has been quite consistent. State sovereignty and international did not matter to him in 1999, and they didn't matter to him later in 2002-03. Given his remarks at the Chilcot inquiry about Iran, I am quite sure that he would have no difficulty supporting and even joining in an illegal attack on Iran were he still a minister in the British government. This makes him one of the most unabashed, unapologetic advocates of aggressive war alive today, and I'm not sure that this requires much courage when there have been and continue to be absolutely no consequences, legal or otherwise, for his actions.

Filed under: foreign policy, politics

7 Responses to "Blair's Monstrous Consistency"

1. NauticalMongoose, on January 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm Said:

I am finding it unusually difficult to find a good source discussing the Kosovo War (I am woefully ignorant about this event). Does anyone have any suggestions? I would prefer a 'just the facts' account from which I can draw my own conclusions.

2. David Tomlin, on January 31st, 2010 at 1:34 am Said:

[The Kosovo intervention was] disastrous for the very people it was supposed to help . . .

I was always opposed to the Balkan interventions, but I am at a loss as to what this is about. Do you mean the ethnic cleansing of the non-Albanians?

For the Kosovo Albanians, we might speculate on whether they would have fared better absent the intervention. I don't know of any facts that would remotely justify describing their present situation as 'disastrous'.

3. David Tomlin, on January 31st, 2010 at 1:51 am Said:

Sorry, I wrote the previous comment before finishing the post. My curiosity was piqued by the quoted sentence, and I was assuming it referred to the outcome of the intervention rather than events during the intervention itself.

4. Brett, on January 31st, 2010 at 2:36 am Said:

I always figured the intervention was basically the US and European way of trying to avoid letting "humanitarian intervention" completely die on the vine. It had already taken body blows from the 1994 Rwandan genocide that they'd ignored, as well as the Bosnian civil war that they ignored until multiple massacres later – hardly signs of people supposedly dedicated to intervening to stop such things. One more blow, or perceived blow (since that was what it was) might have irrevocably damaged it, and that was unacceptable to that crowd.

5. herb, on January 31st, 2010 at 1:44 pm Said:

Please expand on the "lies" NATO used to illegally fight an air war against Serbia.

I know a lot about this subject, and it's only in the last year or so that I've heard any of this "Kosovo was illegal" stuff, mostly from you.

You mentioned "false atrocity stories that the Clinton administration used in its war propaganda." Do you have any examples?

I know for a fact that "false atrocity stories" were used by all sides in the Yugoslav conflict, but I also know that there are many very true atrocity stories that came out of Vukovar, Srebrenica, Osijek, and Sarajevo.

6. Daniel Larison, on January 31st, 2010 at 2:08 pm Said:

The "massacre" at Racak was a key part of Clinton's justification for intervening. The massacre was staged by the KLA. It never happened. There is no evidence that there was a systematic or extensive policy of ethnic cleansing in the works. The Serbs had been fighting a low-level counterinsurgency against a rather nasty gang of criminals for a year, and that was it. The administration had even labeled the KLA a terrorist group the year before it took their side, because this is what it was.

Clinton portrayed intervention as something he did grudgingly to halt genocide, but there was no genocide to halt. He had given the Serbs an ultimatum to let NATO have the run of their country, and like any self-respecting state they refused. Then the bombing began shortly afterwards. If you have never heard arguments that bombing Serbia was illegal until the last year, I submit that you haven't followed the discussion about it very closely.

As for the remark about being a disaster for the people it was supposed to help, I was referring to massive refugee crisis that the war created as hundreds of thousands of Albanians were driven out of Kosovo by a combination of the air campaign and Serbian military units. The mass expulsions that the campaign was designed to prevent were the very things that the campaign hastened and facilitated. Soon thereafter, the Albanians returned to Kosovo, but I would call the effort a pretty dramatic failure if the goal was to prevent the mass expulsion of Albanians.

What bombing Serbia achieved was to detach part of its own territory by force and establish a de facto partition that Western powers then formalized with their recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in early 2008. That in turn contributed to the escalating conflict between Russia and Georgia, as Russia aimed to exact some revenge on one of our satellites for what we had done to one of theirs. All in all, Western policy on Kosovo has been appalling, and it has created a horrible precedent for the future. Of course, it was precisely that precedent that Russia exploited in the 2008 war with Georgia.

Serbia was penalized for attempting to suppress a separatist rebellion inside its own borders. It was a purely internal affair, and no state or alliance of states had any right, legal or otherwise, to launch military strikes against Serbia. It was never sanctioned by the Security Council in any way, and the war violated both the U.N. Charter and had no authorization under the North Atlantic Treaty. In addition, the President had no constitutional authority to wage war against Serbia, but why get hung up on technicalities like that?

7. David Tomlin, on January 31st, 2010 at 3:45 pm Said:

Forensic teams from various countries went in right after the NATO forces, counting bodies and exhuming mass graves (defined as any grave with more than one body). Within months it was clear that the death toll was a fraction of that claimed by the KLA, and repeated uncritically by the Clinton administration and the media.

In one case a disused mine allegedly used to dispose of bodies was examined, and no bodies nor any trace of decomposition fluids was found.

The Kosovo 'genocide' was as thoroughly debunked as the Iraqi WMD, but, as Larison noted, by then media interest had moved on.

If anyone wants sourcing, Google is your friend.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/30/blairs-monstrous-consistency/

 

Kosovo - okay, really, what next?

Kosovo - okay, really, what next?

With 2009 having ended much as it began, the international community must continue to pursue a peacekeeping approach to the north in order to keep alive the possibility of a negotiated outcome.

By Gerrard Gallucci

Keywords: Serbia, Kosovo, EULEX, ICJ, Ahtisaari   

Za tekst na srpskom jeziku, pogledajte ovde

Over the last few months, I have tried to present various facets of the difficult question of what to do about north Kosovo within the context of an overall status settlement. I have emphasized the continuing need to take a peacekeeping approach to the north – e.g., not seeking to settle political issues through force – to keep the door open for a negotiated outcome. Such an outcome might include a differential approach to implementing the Ahtisaari Plan, i.e., vigorous implementation of decentralization (plus allowed links to Belgrade) for Serb-majority municipalities south of the Ibar and an "Ahtisaari Plus" framework for the north (as an alternative to outright partition).

However, on the ground, 2009 ended much as it began. Having assumed the status-neutral mantle of the UN in November 2008, EULEX failed to act to implement the UN Secretary General's proposed six-point plan for addressing practical issues – such as courts, customs and transportation links – by implementing practical, non-political measures. EULEX decided it was better not to offend the Albanian majority by reaching accommodations with local Serb institutions and communities that appeared to accept the status quo of continued deep divisions over Kosovo independence. Indeed, EULEX stood back from, and in some cases assisted, Albanian efforts to bully the Serbs into accepting the Kosovo institutions that they dominate. EULEX allowed electricity blockages of southern Serbs and facilitated a forced, unilateral return of Albanians to a sensitive area (Brdjani) of north Mitrovica. Results were mixed. Under pressure, enough southern Serbs voted in the 2009 municipal elections to give them minimal credibility. But in the north, turning off the electricity simply led to "electricity partition" with Serbia stepping in to fill the gap and now even to start collecting fees.

Instead of seeking to work out status-neutral practical arrangements on customs and the courts, EULEX placed officers at the northern customs gates and in the Mitrovica court with the intention of introducing there Kosovo law, staff and links to Pristina. Urged on by the Albanians, EULEX and KFOR threatened use of force to implement such plans. However, EULEX in December formulated a strategy for winning space in the north for rule from Pristina (http://outsidewalls.blogspot.com/2010/01/kosovo-eu-strategy-for-north.html) that appears more political. It assumes that the northern Serbs have grown tired of resistance to Kosovo independence and will come to accept Pristina as they are freed from the baleful influence of "radical" local leaders. The EU also appears to be relying on President Tadić, eager for the political benefits of entering the EU, to help by removing the "radicals" and acquiescing to the gradual transition of the north to EULEX and then to Pristina. Both seem questionable assumptions. Serb resistance to Kosovo independence is deep and near universal and unlikely to disappear soon. The southern Serbs may be more accommodating as they have no alternative. But the northern Serbs have the alternative of remaining part of Serbia – as they functionally are – and Tadić is in no position to be seen giving them up. But at least the EU looks to be trying.

So, despite all the huffing and puffing from Pristina about "illegal" and "parallel" institutions and a commitment to "dissolve" them, in 2009 Kosovo remained divided at the Ibar. What about 2010? The watershed event may be the ICJ decision on the legality of independence. This could offer Pristina some benefit as anything less than an outright rejection of the declaration as illegal – unlikely – will help free up a second wave of recognitions; countries sympathetic but reluctant to recognize as long as a decision against independence remains possible will be able to move forward. However, a significant number will continue to refuse for their own reasons, probably including at least some of the EU holdouts. Thus the final status issue and the question of the north are unlikely to be settled by the ICJ decision alone. This will only get done by an eventual new round of negotiation. It could be that Pristina and friends seek a final solution in the north through the use of force. But as this would risk provoking a wider crisis, we can expect the EU to hold back as long as the northern Serbs themselves do not outright surrender. So, the status quo may continue in the north. This is not all bad as it also allow for the possibility of a negotiated outcome.

Negotiations will not come easy. Both sides will have to give up something. Carefully calibrated compromise could leave the north nominally in Kosovo but substantially in Serbia. But this may be beyond the parties and the mediators. Partition would be the less elegant solution. But it would have the virtue of requiring both sides to give up something they value: Serbia would of course lose Kosovo but the Albanians would have to accept loss of the north.

2010 may be the year that Kosovo status, and that of the north, really gets settled. Or maybe it will just be more of the same divided status quo. Either would be better than renewed conflict but negotiations would be best and everyone may come to see this after some further theatre.

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008. The views expressed in this piece are his own and do not represent the position of any organization. You can read more of Mr. Gallucci's analysis of current developments in Kosovo by visiting http://outsidewalls.blogspot.com

http://www.transconflict.com/News/2010/January/Kosovo_Okay_Really_Whats_Next.php

Jasenovac – Holocaust promoted by Vatican

Jasenovac – Holocaust promoted by Vatican

 

1/27/2010

Author : Ari Rusila

 

Jasenovac was third biggest extermination camp during WWII and probably the cruelest. The brutality may be explained with its more religious aspect that others. Vatican played important role during events involving afterwards money laundry and covering up war criminals.

 

The UN General Assembly chose January 27 as the official day for the commemoration, as it was on this day in 1945 that Soviet troops liberated the Auschwitz extermination camp, the last such camp still functioning. Throughout Europe, tributes will be paid to the 53 million people who died during World War II, of whom 31 million were civilians. Commemoration has linked usually also to International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 

Auschwitz-Birkenau was the largest extermination center created by the Nazis. It has become the symbol of the Holocaust and of willful radical evil in our time. Few people know that 3rd biggest extermination center was Jasenovac. Two reasons maybe explain this: 1st it is located in Croatia and 2nd the main part of victims were Serbs. The death tolls in extermination centres vary but rough estimations are following (source Wikipedia):

 

    *

 

      Auschwitz II 1,400,000

    * Belzeg 600,000

    * Chelmno 320,000

    * Jasenovac 600,000

    * Majdanek 360,000

    * Maly Trostinets 65,000

    * Sobibor 250,000

    * Treblinka 870,000

 

 

Background

 

Upon the occupation of Yugoslavia, the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists formed an "independent" state in Croatia, which was basically a Nazi puppet state. Immediately upon the establishment of its puppet government, the Ustashe set up militias and gangs that slaughtered Serbs, Jews, Romas and their political foes. Catholic priests, some of them Franciscans, also participated in the acts of slaughter. The cruelty of the Ustashe was so great that even the commander of the German army in Yugoslavia complained. The partisans, led by the Croat Communist Josip Broz Tito, and the Chetniks - Nationalist Serb royalists - fought the Ustashe.

 

 

Under the leadership of the Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic's right-hand man Andrija Artukovic, who earned the nickname "the Himmler of the Balkans," the Ustashe set up concentration camps, most notably at Jasenovac. According to various estimates, about 100,000 people were murdered at the camp, among them tens of thousands of Jews (it is interesting to note that some of the heads of the Ustashe were married to Jewish women). Throughout Croatia about 700,000 people were murdered.

 

 

Jasenovac

 

Located in Croatia 62 miles south of Zagreb, Jasenovac was Croatia's largest concentration and extermination camp. Jasenovac, was a network of several sub-camps, established in August 1941 and dissolved in April 1945. Jasenovac was not the only place where Serbia's neighbour Croatia ran several concentration camps where Jews, Serbs and Roma have been murdered. Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians were allies of Hitler as well. (More about Jasenevac in my document library under headline Croatia )

 

In April 1945 the partisan army approached the camp. In an attempt to erase traces of the atrocities, the Ustaša blew up all the installations, killed most of the internees and tried to hide all evidence about brutalities in Jasenovac, all material evidence disappeared as if there had not been any camp in that place. Later – during Tito's time – the state and the authorities tried to implement "Brotherhood and Unity" motto, with the aim of creating tolerance between the nations and the crime had to be forgotten as soon as possible.

 

 

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, edited by Yisrael Gutman, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 739-740 gives following description about problems to find exact numbers:

 

    "It is difficult to establish the number of victims killed in the Jasenovac concentration camp, since many documents were destroyed. The prisoners' files were destroyed twice (at the beginning of 1943 and in April, 1945) and even if they had been preserved, they would have been of little help discerning the truth, because the Ustasha often killed the newly arrived prisoners immediately, without putting their names into the files. This is particularly true of those who arrived from Slavonia, Srem and Kozara, because it was only noted down that 9,830, or 155 wagons had arrived. For instance, a very small number of Gypsies was filed, only a few hundred, while it is known that all 25,000-35,000 of them from the NDH were killed in Jasenovac. The Jewish community in Yugoslavia has established the number of 20,000 Jews that were killed in Jasenovac. The numbers of killed Serbs are truly varied. The sources from abroad mention numbers from 300,000 to 700,000. Be that as it may, most of the people killed in Jasenovac were Serbs. Exact number being still unknown, but it surely amounts to several hundreds of thousands. The National Committee of Croatia for the investigation of the crimes of the occupation forces and their collaborators stated in its report of November 15, 1945 that 500,000-600,000 people were killed at Jasenovac. "

 

The Yad Vashem center claims that over 500,000 Serbs were killed in the NDH (now Croatia), including those who were killed at Jasenovac, where approximately 600,000 victims of all ethnicities were killed.

 

A documentary film "Jasenovac - the cruellest death camp of all times" can be found from here!

 

 

Religious aspect

 

While for Nazi-Germany Jasenovac was more a tool for ethnic cleansing for Ustashe religious aspect played crucial role. The aim and its implementation efficiency is described differently by people who actually were in Balkans during that period. Ustashe leaders declared they would slaughter a third of the Serb population in Croatia, deport a third and convert the remaining third from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism. Anyone who refused to convert was murdered.

 

 

One may claim that the religious motivation and the brutality of butchers were leading principles in Jasenovac. The fact that 743 Roman Catholic priests were members of the Ustashi and personally murdered Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. Jasenovac was for a time, run by Fr. Filipovic-Majstorovic, a Catholic priest who admitted to killing "40,000 Serbs with his own hands." So at one point, a Franciscan monk was camp commandant of what the second largest concentration camp of the war.

 

The Jasenovac system of Croatian camps also included a camp for children run by Catholic nuns who used toxic soda to save bullets.

 

Roman Catholic priests who participated in the killing of tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies and the running of Jasenovac escaped Europe through the "Vatican Ratline" run by Fr. Draganovich, a Croatian Catholic priest who helped morons like Clause Barbe escape from Europe. Those Catholic priests escaped to Argentina where they also escaped justice.

 

 

Vatican connection

 

 

In 1999 a class action law suit was filed at a court in San Franciso against the Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works) and against the Franciscan order, the Croatian Liberation Movement (the Ustashe), the National Bank of Switzerland and others to recover $100 million in damages for the Vatican's participation in these war crimes and money laundering the proceeds from their Serb, Jewish and Roma victims. The suit was filed by Jewish, Ukrainian, Serb and Roma survivors, as well as relatives of victims and various organizations that together represent 300,000 World War II victims. The plaintiffs demanded accounting and restitution.

 

Franciscans in Rome helped smuggle the Ustasha Tresury and assisted Ustasha war criminals in escaping justice. The Vatican Bank is alleged to have laundered a portion of the Ustasha Treasury. The Vatican not only hoarded the gold the Croats looted, it also helped them escape - with a nod and wink from the OSS and MI6. In 1986 for example, the US government released documents that revealed the Vatican had organised the Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic's safe-flight from Europe to Argentina, along with 200 senior officials of his regime. Pavelic was given refuge by the Vatican, fascist Spain, and Peronist Argentine. The Ustasha Minister of the Interior, Artukovic, lived openly in California from 1949-1986 when he was finally deported to Yugoslavia and convicted of murder. Thousands of Ustasha escaped justice for their crimes due to their wealth and influence and the backing of the Roman Catholic Church and who along with certain rogue elements in the US and UK governments portrayed these war criminals as anticommunist freedom fighters.

 

As the war ended, it is now known that the Vatican Bank and other world banks helped to launder and transfer funds out of the Reich, and helped many war criminals to escape justice in what is now nicknamed the "Vatican Ratline"

 

 

The Vatican Bank has claimed ignorance of any participation in Ustasha crimes or the disappearance of the Croatian Treasury. The Vatican has refused to open its wartime records despite requests from the US government, Jewish and Roma organizations. My main source about Vatican connection has been "Vatican Bank Claims"

 

 

A class action law suit against the Vatican Bank to recover $100 million in damages for the Vatican's participation in these war crimes and money laundering the proceeds from their Serb, Jewish and Roma victims is still ongoing. Vatican lawyers have three times tried to get this case thrown out of court. The Supreme court has rejected their claims.

 

In US District Court the case against the Vatican Bank (but not the Franciscan Order) was dismissed on grounds the Vatican Bank is an organ of a sovereign entity, the Vatican, which is immune from lawsuits. The just filed appeal however argues that the Vatican Bank is not sovereign and engages in commercial activity in the United States and therefore should be held accountable in a United States Federal Court.

 

 

Memory today

 

On Summer 2008 Israel's ambassador to Croatia, Shmuel Meirom, harshly criticized the funeral given to a head of a WWII Jasenovac concentration camp in Zagreb, saying also that it insulted the memory of those killed in the camp run by Croatia's Nazi-allied Ustasha regime. "I'm convinced that the majority of the Croatian people are shocked by the way the funeral of the Jasenovac commander and murderer, dressed in an Ustasha uniform, was conducted," ambassador Meirom said in a written statement. "At the same time, I strongly condemn the inappropriate words of the priest who served at the funeral and said that Sakic was a model for all Croats" Meirom said. (More about this in my article "Nazi's funeral shadows Croatias past")

 

 

Yearly commemoration is important remainder for fair picture of history. At least one day per year is good to think what ultra nationalism can be at its worst level, what kind of interests, power game, attitudes and hidden motivations are creating possibilities for murdering civil populations or ethnic groups.

 

Ari Rusila is a development project management expert and freelancer from Finland with a special interest in the Balkan region.

 

 

Keyword search

Croatia, Jasenovac, Holocaust, Vatican, BalkanBlog-EUROPE

 

http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/PartnerPosts/tabid/671/PostID/1087/Default.aspx

Blair the dictator bulldozed us into war

<> There was one revealing moment in Mr Blair's evidence. He said that
he had taken Britain to war on four occasions. As he said it, he seemed
to realise it was not a popular claim. He paused, and then gave his
list: Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The question of
legality arises both in respect of Kosovo and Iraq. Like Lord Goldsmith,
Mr Blair regards the lawfulness of the Iraq action as turning on the
absence of a second UN resolution, and the reliance on Resolution 1441.<>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article7010321.ece

From The Times
February 1, 2010

Blair the dictator bulldozed us into war

Not since Churchill was a leader so determined to get his own way. But
he was fatally misguided

William Rees-Mogg

We have been told by Sir John Chilcot himself that the Chilcot inquiry
is not a trial, and that nobody will be either acquitted or found
guilty; we all know that is not true. A public judgment is being made as
each section of evidence is given. In particular a quiet judgment has
been made of Tony Blair's conduct. It may never lead to his being tried
in any court, but there is nevertheless a public verdict of his
responsibility for the British action in Iraq.

It was Mr Blair who was responsible; his evidence shows it. He was the
Prime Minister who had won two landslide elections. He could cajole,
coax, threaten, anger and flatter to get his own way, a war leader who
was the nearest thing to a parliamentary dictator since the wartime
Winston Churchill.

Mr Blair's major speeches, among which his Chilcot evidence must be
judged, tend to follow the same pattern. As one listens for the first
time one is likely to find a speech convincing. Yet there are always
loose threads, and one is likely to start picking at them in one's mind.
In his Chilcot evidence, there were arguments that seemed convincing on
Friday, but became more doubtful as the weekend passed. He has certainly
raised more doubts than certainties in my mind.

I would accept Mr Blair's important assurance: "I believed beyond doubt
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." He supported this with the
argument that "no one disputed that Saddam had WMDs". Even that needs
scrutiny, since Saddam himself was claiming to have got rid of his WMD
capacity. On the historic record, it was natural for British
Intelligence to discount any claim made by Saddam.

At the time the Western governments, including those most opposed to the
use of force, assumed that Saddam still had his chemical weapons. It
would have been natural for Mr Blair to share that belief, though he
seems to have relied on low-grade intelligence sources, without being
frank with his Cabinet, Parliament or the public about the possible
weaknesses. He should have corrected the report of a 45-minute missile
threat more promptly.

However, this does not answer the question: "Why Iraq?" Mr Blair argues
that the previous policy of containing Iraq, enforced by sanctions and
overflying, had been overtaken by the attack on the twin towers. He
expressed his argument in a passage that itself calls for analysis. "Up
until 9/11, [those pursuing the policy of containment] were doing their
best"; after 9/11 "the calculus of risk had changed. Over 3,000 were
killed, an horrific event. If these people could have killed 30,000,
they would have done." Mr Blair went on to say that 9/11 "completely
changed our perception of where risks lay".

It is obvious at this stage of his evidence that he still does not
answer the central question: "Why Iraq?" It is true that al-Qaeda had
murdered 3,000 people in the United States; it was honestly but
mistakenly believed that Iraq possessed WMDs that might be a threat to
Western nations. There was no evidence that "these people" who would
have liked to kill 30,000 Americans had anything to do with Iraq or with
Saddam himself. Historically the secular Baath party had seen Islamic
fundamentalism as one of its chief enemies.

Later, Mr Blair made the reasonable point that one should look at the
character of the regime and not just at the nature of the weapons. The
Blair doctrine is that "the assessment of security intimately relates to
the nature of the regime". He believed, justifiably, that Saddam was a
"profoundly wicked, almost psychopathic, man". It is an unacceptable
risk to leave weapons of mass destruction in the hands of such a person.
That is true, but it was equally true before 9/11. It is not clear that
9/11 altered the calculus of risk. If anything it put greater pressure
on Iraq to make concessions.

Mr Blair also applied his doctrine to the current issues of Iran, where
he sees the same dangerous conjunction of WMDs and a "highly repressive
or failed" state. He does not specify the policy he would adopt towards
Iran. He did state that his judgment is "we don't take any risks with
this issue". He does not tell us which are the greater risks, taking
action against Iran, if feasible, or taking no action. Iran is more
powerful than Iraq.

There was one revealing moment in Mr Blair's evidence. He said that he
had taken Britain to war on four occasions. As he said it, he seemed to
realise it was not a popular claim. He paused, and then gave his list:
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The question of legality
arises both in respect of Kosovo and Iraq. Like Lord Goldsmith, Mr Blair
regards the lawfulness of the Iraq action as turning on the absence of a
second UN resolution, and the reliance on Resolution 1441.

Broad questions of international law are also involved.

They concern the monopoly of the use of force given to the United
Nations in the UN Charter. Since 1945, the conventions on torture and
genocide have opened a wider right to use force; there is a general
right to arrest those responsible for torture or to intervene to prevent
genocide. That was the justification for the Nato intervention in Kosovo.

There are still too many failures of the Iraq policy that have not been
justified. Saddam was deposed, but at high cost in allied and Iraqi
lives. We did remain loyal allies, but to an increasingly unpopular
American administration. International law has not been clarified. Brave
troops were not given the right equipment. As General Douglas MacArthur
told the US Senate in 1951: "In war, there is no substitute for
victory." In the end, Iraq was no victory for Britain.

What is NATO?

 

What is NATO?

 

19.01.2010

Source: Pravda.Ru

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/111727-what_is_nato-0

 

Why doesn't NATO take Russia's approaches on a new security pact seriously? Because the Freedom, Democracy, Stability and Prosperity labels attached to the Organization are no more than outer packaging which hides the reality within: NATO is no more and no less than an instrument which serves the interests of the arms lobby. Russia's approaches for a bilateral security treaty, which would inevitably pass by a serious and long-standing binding bilateral agreement on friendship and non-aggression, will not be accepted by NATO for one reason alone: NATO is not about collective security any more and has not been since the Warsaw Pact was disbanded on July 1, 1991. Last month, Andres Fogh Rasmussen, the non-elected Danish Secretary-General of the non-elected NATO (which nevertheless still dictates the foreign policy of its member states), declared "There can be no doubt whatsoever that NATO will remain our framework for Euro-Atlantic security". In a nutshell, there is no space for collective agreements with Russia because NATO continues to focus its attention on the Western Europe-Atlantic space common to the Cold War. It is old hat. NATO has not moved on. It is an anachronism. NATO provides jobs for the boys. NATO serves the interests of the arms lobby which gravitates around the Pentagon and which has its tentacles deep within US foreign policy. NATO is a stone around the neck of the taxpayers not only of the United States of America but also of its member states. Who, after all, funds its operations? Just in Afghanistan and Iraq, the operations of NATO countries have cost almost one trillion dollars (one thousand billion, or 1,000,000,000,000). How many hospitals and schools could be bought with that? Where NATO could move forward, reinventing itself and including Russia would be by respecting its pledges over the years not to expand (yet NATO's word means nothing), by fighting international terrorism, by fighting piracy and by fighting international crime, including trafficking of drugs, human beings and weapons, side by side with Russia or any other nation wishing to modernise its objectives and fight what exists, instead of inventing ghosts to justify the self-perpetuation of the anachronism. Yet while NATO likes to mention these areas, it maintains its Euro-Atlantic stance, freezing Russia out, not paying attention to Russia's concerns and all the time aiming for an expansion into central and Eastern Europe, where there are plenty of customers for weaponry. And why should NATO reinvent itself when all it is today is the instrument to implement the policies of the arms lobby? NATO's strategy is clear in its breach of a pledge given to Russia in 1998 not to station "substantial combat forces" on territory formerly belonging to the Warsaw Pact. Why then did it expand? Who can give one single military reason for the expansion onto territory the Organization promised not to enter? And what is NATO doing in Afghanistan? Today, Afghanistan produces twice as much heroin as the entire world produced in the year 2000 before the military invasion, by NATO, against the Taliban. Given that the cultivation of the opium poppy funds the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, what exactly is NATO doing? In recent years, instead of diminishing, the heroin production on Afghanistan has grown not two-fold. Not three-fold, not ten-fold, not even by twenty times. Today, the heroin production from Afghanistan is 40 times higher than it was in 2000. In 2009, heroin produced in Afghanistan killed over 90.000 people around the world. Everybody knows that NATO pays the Taliban not to attack, so is the priority to allow them to produce heroin so that they can afford to pay, to keep NATO's losses down? In which case, what is NATO? Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru

 

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

 

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/19-01-2010/111727-what_is_nato-0

 

Ethnic Lobbies in America: Outsourcing U.S. Foreign Policy?

Eugene IVANOV (USA)

 

Ethnic Lobbies in America: Outsourcing U.S. Foreign Policy?

It's fashionable to say these days that the world is entering the era of post-Americanism. Few can explain what that means in reality, but the gist is that U.S. influence in world affairs is gradually declining, and sooner or later, another country – most likely, China – will become the only world superpower.

We shall see. However, today it's hard to think of any major global problem – be it climate change or aid to poor countries – can be solved without at least the financial involvement of the United States. Besides, should the U.S. screw up big time – a number of great examples are available over the past decade – no one would be immune.

This keeps making Washington DC a natural target of numerous ethnic lobbies trying to promote their agendas through U.S. foreign policy institutions. According to John Newhouse¹, "nearly one hundred countries rely on lobbyists to protect and promote their interests [in the U. S.]."

As Zbigniew Brzezinski explains², the influence exerted by ethnic lobbies originates from the very nature of the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process. It's generally believed that the president has the upper hand in designing and implementing foreign policy. However, the entire executive branch of the U.S. government lacks a central planning organ responsible for this task. Theoretically, this role should be played by the National Security Council, but in practice, the NSC is so busy with day-to-day coordination of policy (between the presidential administration, Department of State, Department of Defense, CIA, etc.) that it simply has no time for strategic planning, resulting in a decentralized and fragmented decision-making process that is open to external influence.

Besides, presidential prerogatives to direct foreign policy are often challenged by Congress. Due to its composition and structure, Congress is especially susceptible to the influence of special interests, including ethnic lobbies. This is reflected in countless congressional resolutions and legislative amendments introduced and lobbied by special ethnic interests (which, in the process, have become very skillful in using campaign funds to win congressional support for their causes). A common place is congressional caucuses identified with specific ethnic interests; so are congressmen and senators serving as spokesmen for specific ethnic lobbies. For example, the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, one of the largest of this kind, includes over 150 members, none of them being Indian. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, in her days as U.S. Senator, used to co-chair the Senate India Caucus.

In their daily activities, ethnic lobbies perform a number of functions. First, they serve as subject-matter experts and sources of information to members of Congress and other branches of government. Second, they participate in drafting legislation and providing policy oversight. Third, they organize media and public campaigns to advertise and promote their pet issues. Naturally, special attention is being paid to providing campaign contributions to elected officials through political action committees (PAC).

It's important to point out that not every ethnic group living in the U.S. forms a functional lobby. Addressing this issue, James Lindsay³ identified a number of factors that could predict a transformation of an immigrant group into a bona fide ethnic lobby. First, immigrants who came to the United States as political refugees (e.g. Cubans) are more likely to be politically active than those who came for "purely" economic reasons (e.g. Italians). Second, immigrants whose homelands are threatened by their neighbors (e.g. Armenia or Israel) are more likely to lobby for their homeland than those who came from "un-threatened" countries (e.g. Norway, Sweden, or Germany). Third, the most efficient ethnic lobbies are formed by economically successful ethnic groups (such as Jewish, Armenian, Cuban, and Greek Americans). Fourth, ethnic lobbies are the most successful in their activities when the issues that they promote are supported by U.S. political elites. Obviously, they are least successful if their issues go against of what is perceived as American national interest.

In their influence exerted on contemporary American political life, no ethnic lobby can rival the Jewish-American lobby (The Israel Lobby, as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call it in their highly-publicized 2007 book⁴). Many consider its power comparable with that demonstrated by such titans of American lobbyism as National Rifle Association (NRA) and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).

Thanks to the tireless efforts of Jewish-American lobby (organized under the aegis of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)), Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military aid since WWII: over $140 billion in 2004 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-sixth of the total U.S. foreign aid budget and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli – not a bad deal for a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income in the top 30 countries in the world.

In addition, the U.S. provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support: between 1972 and 2006, the U.S. has vetoed 42 of the U.N. Security Council's resolutions critical of Israel. What makes the Jewish-American lobby so successful is its commitment, unity, resources, and political skills. (The last two factors, when combined, are especially powerful: it is said that presidential candidates from Democratic Party depend on Jewish support for as much as 60% of campaign contributions). The "ideological" unity obviously distinguishes the Jewish lobby from the Arab-American lobby, which has been hurt over the years by national and religious divisions. However, one cannot also discount the fact that the Jewish lobby faces almost no opposition to its actions because it advocates policies that are considered (rightfully or not) as fully aligned with American national interests.

Recent years have witnessed the impressive rise of the India lobby, whose influence may one day become comparable to that of the Jewish lobby. Perhaps, non-coincidentally, both ethnic groups share a number of similarities: Indian Americans are also well educated, financially successful, and strongly inclined toward political activism. (Add the real or perceived military threats to India from Pakistan and China). The India lobby also benefits from strong ties to the U.S.-India Business Council, an umbrella organization for 200 companies doing business with India or otherwise having Indian connections. (As pointed out by John Newhouse, 20% of all companies in Silicon Valley are owned by Indian Americans).

So far, the most visible demonstration of the strength projected by the India lobby has been last year's congressional approval of the U.S.-India "123 Agreement" on civil nuclear cooperation. Concerns were raised in the arms control community that the agreement will increase India's ability to produce fissionable material for its nuclear weapons program. To ensure the passage of the controversial deal, the lobby joined forces with the U.S.-India Business Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and two U.S. companies producing nuclear reactors, General Electric and Westinghouse.

Speaking of successful ethnic lobbies one must mention two more: Cuban and Armenian.

The power wielded by the Cuban exile lobby (associated with the Cuban American National Foundation, CANF) in Washington is even more impressive given that Cubans are concentrated primarily in only one location: Miami, FL. However, the special role played by Florida in the politics of presidential elections has allowed a bunch of noisy but politically savvy anti-Castro immigrants to completely hijack – and for decades dominate – the U.S. policy debates on Cuba.

The Armenian lobby (and its flagship group, Armenian Assembly of America) has made Armenia one of the highest per capita recipients of U.S. aid – thanks largely to Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader and a ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee responsible for the distribution of foreign aid. On the other hand, the lobby has so far failed to reach its most cherished goal: a congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the 1915 Armenian genocide. In 2007, the victory was close, as having secured support of the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the lobby almost succeeded in setting up the vote for a genocide resolution. However, prodded by the furious Turkish government, the White House intervened and persuaded Pelosi to shelve the resolution. Naturally, in its communication with the Bush administration, the Turks used some help too: former heavy-weight Congressmen Bob Livingston and Dick Gephardt lobbied on Turkey's behalf.

Among other ethnic groups, the Central and Eastern Europeans do possess a significant voting strength (for example, there are more than 10 million ethnic Poles in the United States), but their lobbies lack the financial resources available to their Jewish or Armenian counterparts. Nevertheless, the Polish lobby (through the Polish American Congress) or the Baltic lobby (represented in part by the Baltic American Freedom League (BALF) and the Joint Baltic American National Committee (JBANC)) have been instrumental in promoting the admission of their respective countries in NATO (Poland in 1999; Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 2004). It is a little secret to anyone in Washington that the noisy anti-Russian hysteria fueled by the Polish and Baltic lobbies is partly responsible for the negative image of Russia in the United States and worsening of U.S.-Russia relations.

Experts disagree on whether ethnic lobbies have positive or negative impact on U.S. foreign policy. Some⁵ consider ethnic lobbies as a welcomed sign of "globalization" of U.S. national politics and believe that ethnic lobbies will help spread "American values" around the globe. Others are not so sure expressing the concern that "privatization" (as John Newhouse puts it) of the U.S. foreign policy further corrupts American political system and diminishes its attraction to the rest of the world. An even more extreme point of view was expressed by Mearsheimer and Walt, who asserted that due to the actions of the Jewish lobby, U.S. policy in the Middle East serves the national interest of Israel rather than that of the United States.

In their turn, American politicians are mum on the subject. Used to campaign contributions from various special interests – the pharmaceutical lobby, the energy lobby, the agribusiness lobby, etc. – they don't seems to be concerned with taking money from their ethnic counterparts. And is there any difference, anyway?

______________________

¹ John Newhouse, "Diplomacy, Inc. The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy", Foreign Affairs, May/June 2009.

² Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership" (2004) Basic Books, New York.

³ James Lindsay, "Getting Uncle Sam's Ear", Council on Foreign Relations (Winter 2002).

⁴ John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2007) Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.

⁵ Yossi Shain, "Marketing the American Creed Abroad (Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands" (1999) Cambridge University Press.

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2711

Recasting Serbia's Image, Starting With a Fresh Face

Christoph Bangert for The New York Times

"When you're young, and when you come and they see you for the first time, a lot of them are just kind of surprised. They say, 'Who's this kid?'"

By NICHOLAS KULISH

Published: January 15, 2010

BELGRADE, Serbia

THE public face of Serbia for years has been that of a wizened war criminal in the dock in The Hague. Now, as the once-outcast country presses for membership in the European Union, it is increasingly represented by the gap-toothed grin of its energetic young foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, all of 34 and a graduate of Cambridge and Harvard.

It is not just appearances. He is a minister in the most westward-leaning government Serbia has ever had, one that is aggressively pursuing membership in the European Union and good relations with the United States. Yet at the top of his agenda stands the issue that brought so much trouble to Serbia: the breakaway province and self-declared nation of Kosovo.

To the consternation of powerful supporters of Kosovo's independence, including the United States, the Serbian obsession runs much deeper than a handful of ultranationalists from the generation of Slobodan Milosevic. Even young liberals like Mr. Jeremic, whose fluent English sounds more Bronxville than Belgrade, cannot let go of Kosovo, though it could endanger Serbia's chance to move beyond its recent troubled past.

"The fact that this kind of fervent, pro-European politician in Serbia happens to have this position on Kosovo confuses a lot of people," Mr. Jeremic said in an interview on the eve of the Orthodox Christmas here last week.

"This place, Kosovo, is our Jerusalem; you just can't treat it any other way than our Jerusalem," he said.

As if to underscore the point, his mentor and psychology teacher two decades ago at the First Belgrade High School, the current Serbian president, Boris Tadic, spent the holiday at the Visoki Decani monastery in Kosovo, under guard amid protests by local ethnic Albanians.

Mr. Jeremic quickly added that Serbia was not pressing its case through the use of arms, directly or in the form of paramilitary groups, but through institutions like the International Court of Justice, which will rule on the manner in which Kosovo declared independence. But the stakes are different, with vastly improved relations with the European Union and an end to Serbia's isolation on the line.

Mr. Jeremic is at pains to explain to Western audiences that Serbia's reputation from the Milosevic years had overshadowed the reality that it is now a democracy, and one whose voters twice chose pro-Western candidates in the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2008 — despite the inflamed nationalist sentiment in the wake of Kosovo's secession.

He was appointed foreign minister at 31, too young and inexperienced in the eyes of many Serbs to be trusted with their most important national issue — the impending secession of Kosovo. Yet, he has fought hard for Kosovo, lobbying governments around the world against recognizing its independence and becoming along the way one of Serbia's most popular politicians.

Mr. Jeremic's stridency on Kosovo has led his opponents to charge that he was a closet nationalist, talking one line when he was abroad and quite a different one at home in the Balkans. "Personally, I don't think I'm a nationalist," he said. "I'm half Bosnian and half Serb."

Mr. Jeremic's great-grandfather on his mother's side was Nurija Pozderac, a prominent Muslim politician before World War II who joined Tito's Partisans to fight the Nazis and was killed in 1943. His paternal grandfather was an officer in the king's army and spent much of the war as a prisoner at Dachau. Once he was liberated by the Allies, he returned to Serbia on foot, Mr. Jeremic said.

HE described a normal childhood in Belgrade, including a close relationship with his psychology teacher, Mr. Tadic. But his father, who worked for the state-owned oil company, and his mother went into exile after running afoul of the regime, and Mr. Jeremic finished high school in London before moving on to Cambridge, where he studied theoretical physics.

His time at Cambridge, which coincided with the war in Bosnia, helped him to understand Serbia's image abroad in a very personal way. "It was hard to explain that you come from Serbia and you're not a children-eating radical," said Mr. Jeremic, who had family members fighting on both sides of the war in Bosnia.

Mr. Jeremic opposed the regime of Mr. Milosevic and was a founder of the Organization of Serbian Students Abroad in 1997, but it was during the NATO bombing of Serbia that he hardened his resolve to work for his country. He said he had high school friends who were also opposed to Mr. Milosevic's reign but were called up for compulsory army service at the time of the airstrikes in 1999. Once they were wearing their uniforms, they were "legitimate targets," as he put it ruefully, and some were killed.

He recalled thinking at the time: "This regime, this government, this guy, Slobodan Milosevic, he has to be removed, because he's going to get us all buried. If he stays, he's going to get us all buried."

Mr. Jeremic traveled to Serbia to support the student movement there, known as Otpor, the Serbian word for resistance. After Mr. Milosevic's ouster Mr. Jeremic followed Mr. Tadic through a succession of ministries as an adviser, taking a break for a degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, before himself becoming foreign minister.

With Serbia's scant resources and tattered public image, his options for fighting the diplomatic might of countries supporting Kosovo, like the United States, Germany and Britain, seemed limited. But Mr. Jeremic, who still looks and sounds a bit like an overachieving college class president, turned himself into a one-man road show, traveling to 90 countries in the two years since becoming foreign minister. Last year alone he spent 700 hours in the air, or roughly 29 days, much of that in a 30-year-old French-built Falcon 50 jet that was bought for Tito.

MR. JEREMIC sees his age, which many consider a weakness, as one of his assets. "When you're young, and when you come and they see you for the first time, a lot of them are just kind of surprised. They say, 'Who's this kid?'

"That's actually a good thing because it opens up their minds. They're curious. They want to hear what you have to say to them because you're different," he said. An afternoon with Mr. Jeremic, whose wife, Natasa Lekic, is a news anchor on Serbian public television, is a pleasant but intense experience, not complete without a glass of Serbian Carigrad red wine and a stream of articulate defenses of the country's claim to Kosovo.

Smoking a cigar and sipping his wine, Mr. Jeremic refused to say what Serbia would demand if it managed to force Kosovo back to the negotiating table by winning its case before the International Court of Justice. He insisted that the mistake the United States and its allies made before Kosovo's declaration was dictating rather than discussing terms.

Their other big mistake, he said, was expecting Serbia simply to acquiesce to the loss of the province, cowed in the face of American and Western European recognition for Kosovo. "This energy we invested, you know, in going around the world, has surprised a lot of people," Mr. Jeremic said. "A lot of people didn't expect us to dare to try."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/europe/16jeremic.html