SOS for the Erasmus program!!

Recently it came to my attention that the EU's Erasmus program, available for all EU students is running out of funds and is in danger. The program is named after the Dutch philosopher Desiderius Erasmus, who lived and worked in many places in Europe to expand his knowledge and gain new insights. At the same time, ERASMUS stands for European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students. (source Wikipedia).

Currently we read in the EU Commission website: "The European Commission is keeping in regular touch with the National Agencies to try to minimize the impact of the current shortage. In the meantime, the European Commission is working with the Budgetary Authority (the European Parliament and national Governments) to make sure it recognizes the importance of the Erasmus program and rapidly agrees to additional funding for this highly valuable and popular European student mobility program." (http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/20121005b_en.htm).

They advise the public that they are doing whatever they can to safeguard the continuation of this project and they encourage the students to keep applying for it.

Well I really hope that they do not abandon this great project and allow any fund cuts to be passed on to it. In my opinion it is one of the greatest achievements that this continent managed to achieve, after the creation of the EU itself of course.  And it is not just good for education or accumulation of knowledge, or even to have some fun while studying in another country.

To me the Erasmus program is a great opportunity to create more "Newropeans" in our continent, young people with a more broad knowledge and conscience. With a more "European" mind frame. For many of the students this opportunity is perhaps the first or the only one they could get to travel and live abroad. And as with Erasmus himself, that gives them an opportunity to gain new insights and knowledge first of all, but mainly to come in contact with many other students from all over Europe. Exchange ideas, knowledge, get in touch with other cultures. Perhaps learn a new language and a new way of life.

By living in another country you get to know how the people of this country live and think. And by living together with many other students from other European nations you automatically become a cosmopolitan person. You stop having a narrow, national only and perhaps conservative way of thinking and of course you take all the experience you gain back in your own country. And if we really want to create a European community and a multicultural society, that is the best tool and way of doing it.

What better way to give this opportunity to our young generations, to be not more cosmopolitan, educated, experienced, multilingual and progressive, but also have a love for Europe as whole. If we are going to change our continent we need to start from the young generation and invest in them, they are the future. They hold the key for a new kind of society in our continent. We need to give them the tools and the stimulus to be this new generation of Europeans.

So why are we giving all our tax money to the Banks, and wasting our resources in maintaining the current economic and political status quo? While we should be investing in our young people and provide them with all the tools necessary for a new Europe. Why are we bowing to the orders of the Banks and the Markets, giving more money and power to the rich elites, while it is our youth who need our attention and they are by far a better investment for the future?

Because with an educated, creative, experienced, multilingual and with a more European frame of mind or open minded future workforce, we have a chance to gain an advantage against our competitors form other regions. That is how you conquer the global markets, not by bailing out your banks! We do not want to live in a Banker's world. We want to provide our youth the tools to spread their wings and fly, and with them, Europe will fly too!

Where is Europe going wrong on Greece?

After five years in recession and a massively shrinking economy, protests, social arrest, massive wage cuts, social benefits cuts, tax increase and massive unemployment, Greece is nowhere near the end of the tunnel.

With all the billions that the EU and the IMF are pouring into the country, surely we should have had some results by now. Why isn't this austerity plan working, apart in the imagination of Europe's ruling elites?

Is it only Greece's fault, or has Europe got it wrong altogether? Europe's leaders talk about the necessary growth needed to kick-start Greece's and Europe's economy, but until now it has remained only on papers.

Great plans have been announced but we have seen no actions for their implementation so far. "Greece must stick to the plan," many European officials and politicians state. But the only thing they are asking is never ending austerity policies. The Greek public obviously can not take it anymore.

They bring as example Bulgaria and other Eastern European countries, that had to go through such measures in the past. But most of them are still suffering from the effects of austerity. Salaries are still low in Bulgaria and recession still harms the economies of Hungary and Romania. 

Greece is forced to take massive loans, that will have to repay with great interest. It is undeniable that Greece had a corrupt governing elite that brought the country to its knees. But European officials did not do anything about it, before the Greek and the European economy reached a crisis. 

They knew about the state of the Greek and other European economies since the introduction of the euro. Also it is not just Greece that has accumulated huge debt, something that the capitalist system requires. In fact all European nations are heavily indebted.

Instead of investing in the Greek economy and save it by stimulating growth, they are forcing more debt on the Greek people. An increasing number of bail-outs mean more debt that Greece will never be able to repay and of course more austerity and lowering of the living standards of the Greeks.

The country needs growth and investments not more debt, especially when this debt is to save the German and French shares in our banking system. In that way, money of German and other rich European citizens go to the hands of the German and other European bankers', through Greece in the form of a bail out. Yet it is the Greeks that must repay these loans.

We need Greek companies to be allowed to flourish and develop with EU funds, cooperation and partnership of other companies from all over Europe. Instead of that European and other multinational companies come and buy everything at low cost, leaving very little profits for Greece and its people. This is a mass privatization and sell out of every national asset, while there is no plan to make Greece a more competitive economy.

If Greece was to become more competitive, our taxation system should be the first to be reformed and ease the restrictions when starting up a business. Instead of that taxation was raised and a large number of the Greek SMEs was forced to close. None of the reforms were growth, small business or people oriented, rather they clearly favor the big multinational companies and the banks.

Many European politicians stated that since political pressure for reforms in Greece failed, Europe needed the pressure of the Markets to push for reforms in the country. They claimed that if Europe allowed such development investments in Greece now, nothing would change, no structural reforms would take place. There would be more spending and thus we would be in a similar situation a few years down.

I agree that Greece needed reforms badly and it was about time for some of them to happen. But not in a way that the living standards of the Greek EU citizens became similar to those of a developing country. Nor turning the Greek public opinion against the EU and the European project, allowing nationalism and far right parties to enter the political scene of the country.This destabilizes the whole social coherence of Greece and it is dangerous. Similar events took place in Germany during the '30s.

The reforms should have started since we entered the EU, but they did not. The blame should fall equally on the Greek political elite and of course the European. Because every country forgets the reforming agenda after it joins. Instead they focus only on how to spend (or waste) EU funds in the case of smaller, poorer countries, or how to increase their influence and power in the case of the bigger and richer countries.

Besides, if there was any real pressure for reforms on the states by any EU body, the same rule could apply for the bigger richer nations and they wouldn't like that. Imagine Britain, France or Germany approving the EU to interfere with their internal affairs. If they do not want to be subject of closer EU inspection, then the smaller states avoid it too.

But this has as result the very slow implementation of EU law and policies on national level. Of course we can not forget the fact that even the rich EU countries are not always playing by the rules. Germany bended the euro-zone rules for its own interests and national policies in 2003.


All these harsh rules for Greece while belonging in the euro-zone with prices equal of those in Germany, France, Holland and other richer EU nations. The country has reached a point that its citizens have Polish salaries, Swedish taxes and German prices. How do this add up and how can anyone live under these conditions?

If Germany or any other European nation wanted to tell the Greeks what to do and how to do it, then they should have bothered to try to understand how everyday life is in Greece, what difficulties do the ordinary Greeks have to face on a daily basis, the country's economy, culture and way of thinking.

There are plenty of historical and political reasons why there is so much corruption and political idleness in the Greek state. The funny thing is that these reasons are actually partly due to decades of European involvement and meddling in Greece's internal affairs.

But today's dominant northern European/Anglo-Saxon realpolitik attitude in politics doesn't help in all the above. Easier said than done, when it is not the Germans that must go through 40-50% cuts of their salaries. It is the Greeks and other citizens of the "peripheral" nations that must step in and save the euro, while they are not the ones who benefited the most from it.

I understand the "much needed reforms" argument, but you can not turn all countries into Germany overnight. Besides that would mean becoming as industrial as Germany is and there is no plans for that. So where is all this austerity leading? If they gave us a clue, perhaps we would not protesting as much. Especially when in every crisis in Europe either political, ideological or economic, Greece was one of the countries that sacrificed the most.

All European nations must have equal rights and opportunities on prosperity and development. If they guarantee us that after the austerity period, Greece will become a true European economy then I am sure that the Greeks will reason, grin and bare the austerity. But the problem is that the European powers want a two tier continent, comprised by the core rich and the peripheral poor regions.

Then the problem is clearly one of inequality, national chauvinism and arrogance of the North/Western EU states. Until the rich European powers lose their colonial and imperial complexes Europe won't be fair or equal and that is the real root of the problem. 

Marriage equality? Why not?

In the recent years, a real revolutionary idea gains support all over Europe and other regions of our world: Marriage equality for all human beings, or more simply the debate for civil partnerships and gay marriages.

Until  now, marriage was considered an institution that applied only between a man and a woman. That is what our religion and traditions taught us. On that belief we formed our societies and all moral laws to make them work and be coherent. So is it any wonder that any radical change in this institution, finds so many conservatives radically opposing it!


Well it is always one corrupt establishment that is staunchly against gay marriage and anything coming from the gay community: The Church. Especially the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches in Europe are the worse offenders. The Protestant Churches are more tolerant, that is why we see in those countries more progress and acceptance.

When the priests preach about "God's will" isn't it ironic that they think that love between two men or two women is shameful, punishable and unchristian, yet the rape of boys and abuse of many children in general committed by them, especially by the Catholic Church is something that they can commit and get away with it? For centuries the priests, monks and nuns of the Catholic Church were abusing and raping children all over Europe, Africa and Latin America. What a hypocrisy!

And all this because the Church is dominated by corrupt, narrow minded bigoted males. No gay man or woman will ever find peace and equality as long as these men are allowed to pour their bile and poison Christianity's true message, that is a message of love and tolerance.

And what about other regions of the world? In a recent article published in the Economist, we read about the unhappy marriages that many women in China suffer, simply because their husbands are gay. To hide their homosexuality they marry unsuspected women. But these marriages of course are loveless, sad unions. So both men and the women they marry fall victims of the society's outdated "morality." So there goes Asia's and other conservative countries' argument that homosexuality is a "western disease".

In many regions of Africa, Japan, India, and the Arab states, they boast that homosexuals simply do not exist in their countries and only western countries "suffer" from this disease. Well in the above mentioned article we see why. Unhappy marriages, unhappy lives, forced to live together with a person that you do not love or are attracted to. And what a pity for those women too. Cultures like these just create unhappy and unproductive people, easy to manipulate and guide; human robots.

Because human sexuality is highly linked with human creativity and freedom of thought. If you can express yourself freely sexually, then you can express yourself creatively in all other spheres of your life. Suppress the first and then you control all the other. That has been and is happening in Europe and the "West" in general as we speak.

And it is why the Christian Church like most oppressive religions like Islam, Judaism Catholicism and so on, the first thing they do is to suppress human sexuality, outcast homosexuality and even ban masturbation itself!! No wonder this world has so many messed up people. It is a crime against humanity, and if I could, I would sue any religion and its leaders that promotes such barbaric ideologies for crimes against humanity.


So many "straight" people do not reach their full potential because some of them are just breeders. Their only purpose in this world is to make children. And not only raise children, but make sure they baptize them as soon as possible and initiate them into a dogma or religion. "Multiply the flock of God!" As if they have no other use or grace. But then they simply remain in their animal status and never progress as human beings intellectually or spiritually, if their only use is to procreate and the only legacy they leave behind is their children.

 You see, some people have only yin in them. Some others have only yang and they desperately are trying to find the opposite to feel whole and fulfilled. They can not exist unless they are in some union with the oposite sex only. Some people though have both yin and yang in them, so they do not need the opposite sex to feel fulfilled.

They only need another human being of any sex or orientation, that will be able to connect with them spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically. Who would you value more; a wife beater husband, an alcoholic dad, a useless mother and bad wife, or a person with developed spirituality and intellect, no matter of what sex, age, color or sexuality he or she belongs!

Marriages should be among two human souls, not just two farm animals that procreate and produce more workers. I know I put it a bit bluntly, but that's what it is. Any two people who want to share their lives together, should be able to do so. We only find gay "marriages" weird and a threat because we are used to see only "straight" ones.

 Besides, we do not discuss of having two men, one in a dress and one in a tuxedo in a church, having the exact same ceremony as a straight couple. Rather about a legal platform, that will give both gay and straight marriages the same and equal status.

To protect two lovers that live together for years from any legal action by the family of either party, in the case of one of them passes. Or in the case of any legal action of one party against the other in the case that  the relationship ends.

Or give the same protection and rights in a case that one partner is a non-EU national, just as any straight person can have his/her rights protected when he/she marries an EU national. So in other words, marriage equality should be passed in a pan-European level and accepted, protected and promotes in all European states. There should be no divisions on this issue either.

And how about adoption? Well for the moment I do not favor such move as I believe it is too soon for a society to digest both the marriage and the adoption. Not that I believe that gay parents are any less competent in raising a child than a straight couple. If any alcoholic, drug user, violent criminal or a religious fanatic can have the right to have children, then why not a gay person?

I just think that it will take some time for our societies to fully accept a child that comes from a gay marriage. And for the child's best interests, I think that for the moment we should focus on pushing for marriage equality.

That of course should not exclude the case of one parent already having one or more children from a straight relationship, to have his/her gay partner able to adopt these children if their natural parent proves unwilling to contribute to their upbringing.

Or he/she is simply dead. Many women find themselves in gay relationships with other women after an abusive marriage to a man and in many cases they are already mothers. If their former husbands are unfitting or indifferent in the upbringing of their children, why can't the new gay partner of that mother adopt the children and provide for them?

Having said that, I find that many people in the gay community are not ready either for such progressive changes. They simply do not understand the concept of love, because nobody has taught them that during their lives. Many gay people are lost in obsessions, sexual addictions, fear, various complexes and a constant search to find themselves, to be able to commit to one person and only, or even worse have children.

 I do not blame them. They have been systematically bullied, mocked, forced to live a double secret life and it is not wonder that they seem lost. But they will only recover and act as normal human beings, when the society stops discriminating against them, slander them and mock them in every chance they get.

It is simply what I have said above: the destructive influence of religion's indoctrination and fanatic dogmas against human sexuality for many centuries, that created empty shelled people, messed up, desperately in need in finding acceptance, love and a purpose. Many gay people live their lives as "normal" straight people, only to seek the occasional sexual experience in a public space to satisfy their needs.

Sex is what identifies them as homosexuals and for them it is usually something shameful and they try to hide it, never accepting it. Others feel that homosexuality is a "culture" and they identify themselves only through the gay community and certain bars, music artists, bands, occasions, events or programs. In other words they broke out of the ghetto bars or parks that gay people used to meet in secret to satisfy their sexual needs, only to create a new ghetto, this time in their own minds!

For me being gay is only a part of who one person is, not who she/he is. And I dream that one day, people will chose their partners not according to age, sex, sexual orientation, color, race, religion or ethnic background. Rather to what they see in the other person's soul and heart, according to compatibility, common traits, values, according to chemistry, attraction and the emotions that one evoke to another. Simply two souls embracing and loving each other, not two mammals that need to procreate.

Not that I am against marriage between members of the opposite sex. On the contrary I believe that finding a person that can be your other half and spend your life with, turning the "me" into "we" is the greatest achievement that one can achieve. The ultimate challenge and goal that any human being should strive to achieve, in order to grow as a spirit and entity.

But in some cases our other half is not necessarily what we would expect it to be, of the race, sex or age that we would expect. So why waste or limit so much potential? And remember, not too many decades ago, it was unthinkable for a person of one race to marry a member of another race! I hope soon one day we will end the taboo of sex and sexual orientation too.

Should Catalonia and Scotland become independent?

On September 11th, 2012, a march in favor of self-determination was held in Catalonia, with city police estimating that up to 1.5 million people took part. And this comes not long after the announcement that Scotland will have a referendum in 2014 regarding its independence from the United Kingdom! How will Europe look like in the future and what new challenges await us all with the new change of the continent's borders?

If those two countries (or regions) achieve their goal of independence, then how many more in Europe are likely to follow suit? Wallonia, Sardinia, Corsica, Wales and perhaps many more regions will bid for independence. Are we prepared for this new reality, and what impact will all this have in our continent's future politics and economy?

Personally I am split between supporting the will and the wishes of the people of those regions and being a bit more cautious on the impact that this will have in an already troublesome European economy. I am just not sure that now is the time for such moves; in fact sadly, I believe that it is time for more unity.

Part of me thinks: what is the point of having too many new states in Europe, since we are working for European integration? A more federal Spain, United Kingdom or any other state that faces the same issues, perhaps would be a better solution. Give them more freedoms for self governance. Because I am sure when they gain their independence from Spain, they will rejoin the EU as Catalonia or Scotland. Thus still have no borders between them and still not being totally independent from them.

One of the main arguments the separatists put forward to support their bid, is that Catalonia contributes 20% of Spain’s GDP but only receive back 14%. But that is true for any country! Is it all about money again?  I was talking to a Finnish lady once, and she told me that the South Finland contributes and sustains the Northern part of the country that has very few natural resources. The Helsinki region in fact supports the north! “We send them bucket-loads of money” she said, when we compared Finland and Europe as money transfers from region to region is concerned!

She supported the idea that poorer regions in Europe should get money from richer regions of Europe, as in Finland, the south supports the north! That would be true for most countries. In Greece we have the same problem, in Italy too. Should we start breaking up all countries up? Shall we make a regional Europe, with many small regions being autonomous, while all be governed by one entity in Brussels? And if we achieve that, how easy will it be with so many smaller but more numerous voices in EU to reach to an agreement? We are having troubles now as it is!

Why don’t we create federations within a greater federation, so while Catalonia, Scotland, Corsica, Sardinia, Walloon and any other regions that wish to have more independence, remain in a more federal state formation, they will be governed in local-national, state-federal and European level? They will have their own government and parliament that will cooperate, answer and send their representatives to the Spanish one and the Spanish will do the same in its relations with the European one.

Of course that is only when the economy is concerned. There are many other issues involved, like protecting the Catalan language, culture and heritage. According to many Catalans, new laws appear from Madrid  everyday that take more and more control of Catalan culture and language.

So perhaps the change must come on a Spanish front, not just Catalonia? If the loss of language and identity is being promoted by Madrid then we are talking about potentially a full Spanish state dissolution if the Basques, the Galicians and others follow the example of Catalonia. Perhaps with the encouragement of the EU, Spain should promote more diversity of its culture and heritage. Follow the European motto: Unity in diversity!!

And of course we should be careful on how this dissolution will take place: the Yugoslavian way or the Czechoslovakian way? In most ex-Yugoslavian states, there are still supporters of Tito that remember the Yugoslavian days with a sense of longing. And they all now aspire to become EU members, thus giving up their short lived independence too soon.

Is now the best time to promote dissolution of states in Europe? How will the global markets and economy react and will this shake their confidence on the Spanish region and the euro? Possibly the Spanish region as a whole will find itself in the eye of new a storm, affecting all regions of the former Spanish state. Will such a solution be wise now, and what impact will it have in the overall Iberian and European economy? If Spain dissolves as a country, will this be the solution to the country's economic woes, or the creation of more and will the global investors be happy to invest in new emerging regions?

Perhaps this is what the global players want. To end the existence of old established European states, thus getting rid of the rigidity of the established European elites and their conservatism. So they promote, support and perhaps even fund this new surge of independence bids across Europe. Probably this is good. We need new voices and a fresh air in European politics.

But could it be possible to give the regions their autonomy in a Europe of regions? It is possible that what we need right now is a Europe of regions with their own culture, identity and governance under the umbrella of a European economic and political framework. But that means a redrawing not so much of the borders, rather the institutions and legislative powers that govern Europe so far. Are we ready for this? Should we perhaps focus on establishing a fully functioning European democracy and governance, before we move to the dissolution of the existing European states? Perhaps such moves come a bit prematurely.

Are we ready as Europeans to accept this new reality and start thinking as citizens of a region, rather a nation state? I do not wish to block any attempts for independence from any populace of Europe. Because if that was the case, then Ireland, the country I live in or Greece, the country I come from, should have never gained independence from their former colonial powers. Nevertheless, Ireland is still highly reliant in the United Kingdom or the USA economically and culturally and Greece still struggles economically as a county, relying in a great extend on Europe.

There are many reasons of course for this, that lay on the interests of people both in those countries, Europe and further abroad. But perhaps the Catalonians should be careful not to rush in any decisions and become reliant to any foreign country, group or organization, in their struggle to gain independence from Spain. What good does it make to have many small fragmented states in Europe, that are easier to manipulate? Are the Catalonians rushing to jump from the pan into the pot? Will they become what have FYROM and Montenegro become in their struggle to attract foreign investment and support, to fund their existence; another potential tax haven for big corporations!

I will respect the outcome of both referendums in Catalonia and Scotland of course and I will support the wish of the majority of the population of those nations. But I also wish that they will decide responsibly and not because a passing surge of nationalism!!

Are private owned charity agencies doing any good to the countries in need?

When I was growing up as a kid in Greece, I remember that almost every year my mother was buying notepads of UNICEF for me to use at school. Just so that we did our little bit to help their cause.

We were watching so many advertisements on our television set about the humanitarian emergency that some parts of the world were facing, so we were moved by all the images we were exposed to.

I am now a 35 year old man and one would think that nearly 30 years later, the campaigns to save the "poor kids of Africa" would be a thing of the past.

Well they aren't. After so many charity events, concerts like LIVE AID and LIVE8, high profile campaigns all over the world and many new NGOs and private charity organizations like Concern and Barnados, the continent of Africa still needs help.

Where are we going wrong? It is doubtful that it's only the African leadership's fault, that their continent is still lacking the development that other parts of the world have achieved. Though Africa is not the only region of the so called "Third World" suffering, just the worse hit. Humanity can not progress any further if we leave those regions behind. How can we tackle the situation and is charity and the provision of loans the answer to this problem?

Most of us when we think of the African continent, two main images usually come first into our minds: its wildlife and its poverty. Images of lions, elephants, giraffes and zebras, together with children barely alive from hunger in Africa's slums. These are the usual images that we are exposed to and coming out from this continent.

If you ask any African immigrant in Europe though, he/she will tell you that these images often offend them. They do not always portray the real life in Africa, apart from some poverty stricken regions. Most Africans do not identify with those images.

We rarely see anything about the lifestyle of the average African family, it simply doesn't "sell!" Nobody would give money to support a well established African family. Besides, these practices also help supporting the idea that Africa desperately needs more aid, when in reality all it needs is investments. With loans and "aid" is easier to control, corrupt and manipulate the African governing elites. With direct investments we offer permanent solutions, but with loans we can control an indebted country for decades to come.

So what is the role of private NGOs in the whole story? First of all, it is their advertisements that brainwashes us to associate Africa only with poverty, just as we relate Greece with tax evasion and corruption now. We have been doing the same on Africa for decades.

Little do we know how rich Africa is actually. Underneath its fertile soil lie vast natural resources that other nations, multinationals and corporations want to get access to. The same "trick" is used today in countries like Greece and we witnessed it happening in Latin America too. The global capitalist elites like to throw more debt on a country or region, then get its natural resources for nothing.

Most of Africa's countries were formed not too many decades ago. Creating a nation from scraps is not easy, especially when you have to deal with the legacy of colonization. The European colonizers made sure their very successful policy of divide and rule was applied all over the continent and in result, it created many inter-ethnic or religious wars and tensions. So when the African countries gained their freedom, the old hatred that the colonizers promoted remained and it kept working its corrosive way into African life.

Generally the problem is that it is good business for some to keep promoting these stereotypical images. "Charity" is profitable. And how can they keep this business alive? By advertizing the "need" and "urgency" to help a dying child. As disgusting as it may sound, dying children always sell.

Some of these charities have done a lot of good and have helped in building and restoring communities. But their actions do not offer a permanent solution. This is not the way to help a region in need with long term results. The only way to achieve this is with direct investments.

We should be helping these countries to learn how to exploit their natural resources and utilize all their potential. Imagine if Africa was as free to develop and reach its full potential, how the rest of the world would look like? If we did not have the developing countries to "offer" their cheap first materials like Africa, or the cheap work force of some Asian countries like India, things would be much different for all.

Of course recently Africa enjoys a growth rate that is much higher of that in Europe, but there are still huge economic disparities between the developed and the "third" world. And if Europe and America remain in recession for long, Africa alone won't be able to sustain its growth rates. The solution would be to promote the setting up of industries in Africa, engage in fair trade and Europe, America, as well as other countries should lower their protectionist policies.

The African nations should then be able to exploit their natural resources and trade them in the global markets for the benefit of their people first. The rest of the world should be investing in the continent not with aid and loans, but with factories and jobs, universities and hospitals.

Another worthy initiative is the promotion of local businesses. Not just in Africa, but in every other region of the world including Europe itself, to deal with the economic crisis. Encourage local businessmen to create new jobs and with them will come prosperity and stability, education, more industries and investments from abroad and withing the region.


To conclude, if you agree that the three decade saga of "aid" to Africa and the rest of the "third" world has gone too far, then it is time to change attitudes. Besides, Europe as the biggest donor on our planet, can not keep up with this. Most of our continent is gripped by a recession. And above all, it is not ethical to portray a whole continent as we have been so far, forcing them to seek jobs elsewhere and then blaming them for coming into our countries.

How can we tackle global inequality?

During the past few years we notice the issue of the "inclusive growth," (i.e. economic growth that is broad-based and benefits the majority of the population).

The last decade has seen the steady rise of developing countries across the world, led by the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). However, rapid economic growth has often been accompanied by rising inequality (Debating Europe).

How can we expect to have equality in this world, when our very our civilization and nature of our economies are capitalist. Meaning that we all are constantly striving to accumulate ever increasing wealth at any cost.

The only thing our economies and countries must work to achieve is growth. More money and power gathered into the hands of few. This greedy attitude is the root of all evil that our world experiences. Once a group of people or countries get rich or powerful enough, then all they are trying to do is accumulate more wealth, plus trying to prevent others of getting access to it. Because if too many nations have access to the same amount of wealth, that results to less of it for the already wealthy.

Under these conditions, how can we promote equality in the world? In reality such idea is only a utopia that will never be fully achieved. But at least we can try to make our societies a bit more equal and less painful for those in the lower classes. Because if we want to try to achieve absolute equality, then we have to proceed with wealth redistribution among the different levels of societies and among states and regions.Something that the rich nations would no doubt oppose.

So in a utopia vision, which most likely will never come to reality, the following should be achieved in order to achieve equality.

a) Reduce the importance of all tax haven states, if not scrapping their taxation policies and encourage them to integrate in a bigger state or international organization for their survival. The only purpose of their existence is to promote tax evasion. How on earth can we tackle such issue, when we have countries on our planet that they are fostering it and of course make profit out of it.

b) Limit the power of the banks and the markets, or at least regulate them. Create rating agencies in Europe and Asia or other regions so that we will have more competition in this industry too. Now the whole world is rated according to American interests, their way of doing business and mentality. Not necessarily the right one for all nations or cultures.

c) Scrap the Security Council in the UN, or at least reform it. The countries in it are still representing the post WW2 status quo of global power. The permanent members are the world's so called "super-powers," (USA, China, Russia, France and Britain). The non permanent members are selected for a two year membership, that can be from any region of the world. How can a small African country that is elected for just two years can make any real difference representing its region's interests, when having to deal with giants like the USA and Russia?


d) Allow all countries to be able to exploit their natural resources without the intervention of third parties, blocks, corporations or countries. The main problem is that some countries are free to exploit their natural resources freely for the benefit of their people like Norway, yet in other regions the global players and powers are corrupting the national elites of a certain country with money.

So that they will sell out their national resources for scraps, benefiting only the political elites and those corporations/groups/countries involved. How can we talk about “equality” when there are forces who promote inequality by corrupting the political elites of certain states?

e) Promote transnational organizations and formations like the EU, to promote integration and break the traditional “national” politics. In some countries like Greece and Ireland, politics are still decided under the influence and legacy of the divisive post civil war politics. All these countries suffered bloody and destructive civil wars that left a mark in the political life of the state, until today.

There are usually two main parties that represent the two rival sides of the civil war and traditionally families vote according to their family’s allegiance to each. How can we ever move on and progress with this mentality? We need a new blood of thinker politicians with a vision, not an ideology.

f) Reform the capitalist system, stop the accumulation of money and power in some corporations, states or organizations at any cost. Reverse the growth oriented GDP economy and focus in creating a fair society that works, not a society that knows only to consume. Control the influence of the markets and the rating agencies, that are pushing for growth evermore.

If “growth” means that we as a society have to go backwards, scraping all worker’s rights and quality of life of our citizens in the name of "growth" and "competitiveness," then it is immoral. Also health and education should be free for all and not be privatized, they are a human right not a commodity.

g) Stop the "commodification" of everything: from fish to land, plants, animals, natural resources and soon even the water or the air that we breath and even worse, the "commodification" of people themselves. When we are talking about work force and the so called "labor market" that must be flexible, non-permanent with as less social rights as possible, then we are turning humans into another asset.

Any country with strong social policies is avoided by the "investors" and is considered as "less competitive." It is heaven for them after all, to have workers that work a lot with as little money as possible. How can we expect young people to create families, to start up a career or a new life, when we create unfavorable conditions for them to get a job, unless they get exploited.

h) No to privatizations of all natural resources. A nation's government must have at least partial control over them. A country's government represents the democratically elected by the people decision makers, they are their voice and the care takers of these resources. Their best interest and those of the people are better served when the resources are under the control of the government.

Foreign multinationals do not care about the people, the environment or any issues that may arise. Their only care is to make profit. So why pass full control to them over your resources in exchange for a few jobs? While just as Norway has done with its oil reserves, a government must manage the resources and invest in a fund that all the country's citizens will benefit out of it.

If just a few of the above points are ever achieved, global inequality will be limited if not eradicated. The problem is, who will dare to proceed with these drastic but necessary reforms, when they will radically transform our world for the better but to the detriment of the rich nations and their elites?

State of the European Union Hangout+ with President Barroso on Euronews.

http://youtu.be/Fi0ysaVVQ5w That is the video of the "Ask Barroso" program in Euronews today, that I was a guest and participated LIVE from the Google head-quarters in Dublin. Watch and enjoy!

Barroso's State of the Union speech gave me hope for a better Europe..But will our leaders oblige?

Like many other citizens and fellow bloggers, I have watched and read Mr. Barroso's speech in the European Parliament yesterday. The President of the EU Commission gave an inspiring speech, that every sentence sounded like a music to my ears. Many of my fellow bloggers have been discussing everything that Mr. Barroso mentioned in his speech for years now.

The question is: we know what it needs to be done. Will our leaders oblige and follow through? Britain is on the brink of a referendum on their EU membership. The crisis in the eurozone has created a lack of trust between our governments and of course divisions among the European populations. Populist parties have gained access to many countries' parliaments. How easy will it be for the Commission and the European Parliament to implement all that Mr. Barroso mentioned?

Most of the ideas are not new. Many European think tanks, institutions, MEPs, top European and EU politicians and officials and many bloggers have been proposing the same solutions for many years. But I was more than happy to listen to Mr. Barroso presenting the EP with a new road map and committing to push for those necessary reforms in a pan-European level. It has to be done. And it was about time!

A few of his comments that I would like to comment further: In the beginning Mr. Barroso explained very accurately the analysis of the situation in Europe and the reasons we are in this crisis. Particularly he noted the irresponsible practices in the financial sector, the unsustainable public debt and the lack of competitiveness in some Member States. I will stop in one very important thing that he mentioned, the vicious circle of European summits.

In he speech he talks about " very important decisions for our future are taken at European summits. But then, the next day, we see some of those very same people who took those decisions undermining them. Saying that either they go too far, or that they don't go far enough." And he continues by saying that "It is not acceptable to present these European meetings as if they were boxing events, claiming a knockout victory over a rival. We cannot belong to the same Union and behave as if we don't. We cannot put at risk nine good decisions with one action or statement that raises doubts about all we have achieved."

To me the above is clearly a message to our national governments and he speaks about the summits of the Council of the European Union. Personally I often wondered why we never get to see any discussions or debates that are going on in those summits. We do have access to debates and plenary sessions of the E.P. on youtube and other websites affiliated to the EP and the EU in general. But what our elected leaders discuss, compromise or agree on in the EU Council meetings we never get to see.

Who are those politicians that Mr. Barroso is referring to? Would they act like this if they knew that we would be watching? If we had a platform that it would name and shame them, perhaps their behavior would be much different, their discussions more of a substance and they would be forced to commit to what they have agreed. I would like as a Greek to see what our government is saying to our European partners and why if Greece is agreeing in most things that the EU puts forward, we still as a country have one of the worse records of implementing those rules. Perhaps if our leaders knew that we would be watching and we are aware of what they promised to our partners, there would be no way for them to come back and blame their failures on Europe or not feel obliged informing us about the situation.

The same I suppose goes for any other country. Would the British have the same attitude towards the EU if they saw what their politicians discussed in those Council summits? Would the Germans believe everything that their press is telling them about having to pay for other nations? I personally detest this "intergovernmental-ism" and I would love to see the EU Council scrapped for good. I believe that Europe should be governed in three levels, the local, the national and the European one. So give full power to the European Parliament and the EU Commission for all matters European and leave our governments to deal with our national ones. But since this ain't gonna happen, as I do not see any national politician giving up his/her right to boost their ego and attend "boxing matches" on European playground, then I would happily settle for more transparency.

Let us see what our leaders debate and help us make up our own mind. And since their image is more important to them than any real progress in Europe, well then I guess they would not behave like they did until now once they knew that we will be watching!

Mr. Barroso continued by suggesting a "new thinking for Europe." Europe needs a new direction, a more "European" one. He mentions that if Europe is to be able to compete in the future in a globalized world, we need more unity and integration among our members, thus more democracy; a European democracy. "It means embracing the interdependence of our destinies. And it means demanding a true sense of common responsibility and solidarity. Because when you are on a boat in the middle of the storm, absolute loyalty is the minimum you demand from your fellow crew members," Mr. Barroso continued. He mentioned that Europe can not compete giants like the USA and China and all the emerging countries. The world is changing and so should Europe. And unity brings strength.

Later Mr. Barroso put forward his "Decisive Deal" for Europe. This will involve reforms in pan-European level. A genuine economic and political union are necessary, based on growth, confidence and trust among EU's member states. He went on and announced various programs that the Commission is committed to put forward by 2014, both on economic and on political level. And all that he spoke about made so much sense and they were debated for years by many bloggers in Europe's "bloggosphere."

Boosting the Single Market, promoting competitiveness, boosting our renewable energy potential and investing in education, research, innovation and science. Reforming the taxation system of Europe, forming the (much necessary) banking union among the eurozone member states. Reforming CAP, tackling unemployment, battling tax evasion, moving towards a true fiscal union, empowering the European Parliament and promoting pan-European political parties, are some of the reforms proposed by Mr. Barroso.

I am particularly happy that in the space of the next two years we will see all (or at least some) of the above being implemented, if of course our national governments don't blow it again. I hope they have learned their lesson that if they act irresponsibly the consequences are far harder to deal with in the end, than if they have followed the rules that they themselves have agreed on in the first place. 

I really look forward the Banking Union because as Mr. Barroso suggested, "the crisis has shown that while banks became transnational, rules and oversight remained national. And when things went wrong, it was the taxpayers who had to pick up the bill." The idea of pan-European political parties is also one of my favorites, as I find such move necessary to break traditional national party politics and agreements under the table. It is the only way to fight corruption on national level and weaken the influence of national politics on European level. And of course my favorite announcement of all was the empowering of the European Parliament. Something that I have always believed and dreamed of. Any parliament is the core of a functioning democracy, either national or international. Because democracy can exist in both national and international levels. But so far the EP did not have the powers that it should have. This is why we had the democratic deficit in Europe. Hope this will change and the Commission and the EP will stick to their promises.

Mr. Barroso also announced a necessary treaty change, so that Europe can become a "Federation of Nation States." Which of course finds me in absolute agreement. I will never cease to be a Greek (and a proud one too) by giving a part of my nation's sovereignty to Europe. All nations will do equally the same. I am already a European by geography, history, culture and even politics. We are not trying to erase our identity and suddenly become "Europeans." We are all already Europeans, but this is only a part of our identity. My identity is also Greek, Thessalonian, a Greek-Macedonian by birth and a Dubliner by choice. Besides, as Mr. Barroso already mentioned, we are not talking about a European "superstate!"

What we are trying to achieve is to create a better, fairer, equal, stable and prosperous European continent that we all going to contribute, benefit and be part of. For all the state members throughout the continent, from tip to tip. And that can happen only through a "Federation of Nation States," of countries that will be willing to share, cooperate and work together to achieve all the above goals. Because together we can deal with pressures coming from multinationals and larger countries better. The governments of small countries are proven to be more prone to succumb to pressures from them, leading to corruption. Because together we can have better security of our borders and for our citizens. Because together we can maximize our potential. Europe has vast resources if put together. From human resources, to energy, land, financial etc.

Mr Barroso also called for "a debate of a truly European dimension." That is also find me in agreement. If we want to make citizens believe in the EU/European project, we need to let them speak. In this way, they will feel that they have a say in it, that this project is theirs because they helped its formation and their voices were heard. And not something that it has been imposed on them. This debate will happen all over Europe and in my opinion is a long delayed one too. 

Mr Barroso also defended Europe's social market economy, and the continent's social model and its values. He rejected the claims that Europe's social model is dead, but he did add that if we want to keep it we need to push for the necessary reforms and change the European economies. That is something that I also welcome. There is nothing worse to me than the American model. Besides, we need to safeguard our values and our social model is one of them. That is what makes us Europeans and that is what we can contribute to the rest of the world. 

Closing his speech, Mr Barroso was quick to rebuff anyone who would think that all the above were unrealistic. He instead asked: "is it realistic to see what we are seeing today in many European countries? Is it realistic to see taxpayers paying banks and afterwards being forced to give banks back the houses they have paid for because they can not pay their mortgages? Is it realistic to see more than 50% of our young people without jobs in some of our Member States? Is it realistic to think that we can win the confidence of the markets when we show so little confidence in each other? To me, it is this reality that is not realistic. This reality cannot go on."

And he concluded by noting that "the European Union was built to guarantee peace. Today, this means making our Union fit to meet the challenges of globalization. That is why we need a new thinking for Europe, a decisive deal for Europe." To me this last sentence says it all. That is why we have to keep getting involved, all of us in our country's and in European politics. That is why we need to start having a vision and not be afraid to demand it from our politicians. We need to start believing again in the European project. 

But I only hope that all countries are equal in it. There will be nothing worse if we again see the old European powers trying to dominate the smaller and weaker countries and have their interests put above Europe's. All countries should be equal in this new "Federation of Nation States," and the sensitivities, needs and wishes of every nation taken in consideration. I would love to see the EP protecting its citizens and break the old corrosive patterns of nationalism, protectionism, conservatism and xenophobia.

I also hope that all that Mr Barroso has promised do not stay on paper...again! It is not the first time we hear a speech like this, and the ideas are not new. But can we get on with it and implement them please?  The more we waste time, the more the populist parties will gain the upper hand in our countries. And once they do, even if we would wish to reverse the situation and return to our European values and ambitions, it will be much harder when their bile has poisoned the minds of the majority of the Europeans.

What will the future of Afghanistan and Iraq be?

Last December we saw the total withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq and it is estimated that by the end of 2014 they will leave Afghanistan as well. And that will hopefully end America's campaign on terror, on foreign territories at least. Well that is if they are not convinced by Israel to invade Iran too, or get involved in Syria or even North Korea. They will find a way or an excuse if they really want to, there is no doubt about it.

The thing is, what happens to any country that is "lucky" enough to receive the help of America in attaining democracy the American way, after they and their allies' troops leave. These wars have cost the American and European tax payer a whole lot of money, never mind the thousands of lives of American and European troops, together with the more than one million of Iraqis and Afghans. 

 Well let's face the facts: the US and their allies did not invade simply to find Osama bin Laden, find and destroy the terrorists and bring democracy in these regions. Democracy is established in one nation or region by the will of the people, not by the invasion of another country. The West invaded those lands to promote their interests in these regions. Many have profited out of these wars, but certainly not the ordinary people of the USA or Europe and their allies form all over the world. 

We have the weapon industry, the oil industry and the whole capitalist system benefiting from these wars and the deaths of innocent people. Because introducing "democracy" to any closed and isolated countries that avoid the western culture and goods, equals to opening new markets to sell your goods. Nearly the whole world has been part of this capitalist system for some time now. Few countries are out of it and refuse to join. And we see how they are portrayed as troublesome and that they desperately need our "democracy." It is not the first time that people die so that some countries or lobbies or corporations serve their interests and expand their sphere of influence. 

If we look back in history we will see how different regions, continents or individual countries have been manipulated and "encouraged" to change and reform their economies in order to be part of this economic system we currently have. Europe for example was dragged into it with the famous Marshal plan. The continent after the WW2 was in ruins and if it wasn't for the money it received from America as a part of the Marshal plan, economic recovery would be very difficult to achieve. The money of course did not come for free. Europe was flooded by American goods, boosting the American economy and promoting the American way of life and thinking in to the western part of the continent. 

In that way, certain European elites were established to support and maintain the status quo. And of course keep buying American goods. As long as the money and the investments from America were pouring in, they made sure to transform their countries into an image of USA. Capitalist, market based economies, multicultural and free trading. The same happened in other countries in bigger or lesser extend. Japan, South Korea in the far East are just another example of the expansion of this model. 

But in certain countries the interests differed. For example Palestine and Israel. The West desperately needed to have its foot in this very important region. Plus to solve the Jewish state problem and to compensate the Jews for what they had to suffer during WW2 by granting their wishes for an independent state. But the West has to pour millions of dollars in supporting the state for Israel each year, just to help it keep its military supremacy in the region and thus its existence. At any cost. That is the only reason the West forbids Iran to have nuclear weapons, because the balance of power in the region will shift. And it is so important to them that they are contemplating even an invasion. 

 The situation in the Balkans is no better. Kosovo is only one of the nations that rely on Western funds just to exist. The country even relies on Europe for its policing. FYROM too receives a huge amount of money from various foreign "investors" who stupidly wastes in propaganda and its effort to beat Greece and prove that they are the true descendants of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon. These "investors" have another agenda for the country and the region and that is not of course that of peace and stability.  Europe's and America's policies in the Balkans were always been disastrous and fanned nationalism, ethnic tensions and even in the past many wars. Europe always played one Balkan nation against another in order to serve their own interests or stop the Russian influence or Ottoman domination.  

Of course they have always claimed that they did what they did "for the good" of the people. Well in another article in my blog I explain how they used espionage to involve Greece in WW1 and everybody knows the role of Britain in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus that lead to another problem that Europe faces today: a divided EU nation with no hope of resolution, simply because the interests of different Western states lie with keeping the island nation divided. So I would not be very trusting of any Western propaganda. 

And if we examine the case of my native country Greece, there we see a very interesting mix of meddling resulting in national failures and disasters. Greece after WW2 had to endure a bloody civil war that to many was the first test of the Cold War. It is well know that British troops got actually involved in battles against the communists and Greece almost became one of their colonies. All that so Greece can remain under Western influence. After a two decade peace, America backed a military junta in the country, that rolled back any progress in democracy the country made. Even when Greece joined the EEC, the decision was taken not on economic grounds rather political: the West always wanted to control Greece and the whole region of the Southern Balkans because of their strategic location.

In order to establish a firm pro-western regime, Europe and America poured bucket loads of money into Greece. As part of the Marshal plan, the US was giving the country aid in exchange for the right to establish military bases in the country. After the civil war and the victory of the pro-Western nationalists, there are reports that in many interrogation rooms used by the police to interrogate suspected communists, the police officers were shouting at the suspects "what are you? an American! what are you?" Before beating them up. Any person found to be a communist was expelled from the country only to resettle in the former communist states. That is how there is a large number of Greek diaspora in Eastern Europe! 

American troops were giving food, cosmetics and beverages to the poor and deprived after so many wars Greek folk, that was visiting their bases to receive free goods. All US bases apart one in Crete were closed during the presidency of George Papandreou the Senior, after a spat he had with the American government. 

Greece was also receiving money from Europe. Ever since it became member of the then EEC and later the EU, Greece was receiving special "packages" for development or subsidies from the different EU projects and bodies. The most famous and even controversial was the Delors packet that there was so much talk about in the Greek media when I was growing up. The truth is that while some of these funds were wisely absorbed and the life of the Greek people got better, a large amount was wasted away. Telephone cables, new roads, internet connections, bridges and new air ports were quickly expanding. Anything to make it easier to the Greeks to consume and follow the Western example. But on the other hand, most of the Greek successful companies were forced to close, relocate or were bought by larger Western multinationals. 

In many cases Greece was being given subsidies not to produce and to bury any excess fruit and vegetables it produced, instead of exporting them. And a large amount of this money was abused to make sure that the two major parties that ruled Greece for the past 40 years remained in power. The money were used in bribery for votes and political favors in order to keep the established "pro-Western" "pro-Capitalist" regime. I was only a receptionist in a hotel in Thessaloniki, Greece's second largest city, when we were receiving bookings from one of those two main parties. Bookings to accommodate "Hellenized" immigrants from Russia and many other former Soviet republics. The party was paying for the flights, accommodation and transportation to our hotel with just one condition; for those people to vote for this particular party in the upcoming elections. That is how political elections were rigged in Greece and how those two parties remained in power. 

Now of course it is the cheated ordinary Greek people who have to pay the price and the European tax payers to see their taxes used once again to maintain the status quo in the continent. Because even when the Greek public eventually woke up and decided to get rid off PASOK and the New Democracy parties that led the country to such decline, it was then Europe actually that told them to stick to them so that they can insure that the country would stick to its commitments to its creditors and the bail out deals. How else would the country sell out all its national assets to multinationals? So after of decades of European and American meddling in Greece's affairs, we are still were we started; Greece being totally reliant to the Western countries.

So what does all this has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan? Well basically history is repeating itself. We invaded to establish a new pro-Western regime in those two countries. We help establish a corrupt elite to make sure that both countries will  remain under American or Western control and influence, but this elite will become addicted to money that will be coming from us and so the countries will never progress. Ain't what our elites and governments want by the way. And we are going to keep pouring money into those countries and the more we do that, the more dependent they will become from us. Africa is perhaps the most tragic example of these kind of policies that our elites are practicing. Iraq and Afghanistan will be bleeding money out of the Western countries for decades to come. No matter if America will be able to pull out by 2014 or not, the elite they want to establish over there will keep asking for support, aka funds to deal with the never-ending threat of the Taliban. 

The moral lesson of this story? Never get involved in another country's affairs in order to serve your interests and change the status quo. If you do, then you will have to be prepared to pay for it for a long time to come. I may sound anti-West and anti-American or anti-European. No I am not. I am a proud Greek, a proud European and a proud Western man. But I am so with the original version of the term. A Greek humanist with a vision for an equal world. Not a war mongering bank and market loving greedy scum!! There is a huge difference.

Pussy Riot and Assange rock Europe!

The month of August was relatively quiet from any political developments, but two political events rocked the continent both in the east and west. The imprisonment of the female punk rock band in Russia, Pussy Riot and the political asylum that the embassy of Ecuador in London offered Julian Assange.

To me it was very interesting to watch the developments in these two cases and see the hypocrisy of the western media and the parallelisms in both stories. One was the case of a punk rock band challenging the ultra conservative Russian establishment and the other the case of the founder of the whistle-blower website, Wikileaks. He challenged not the political or religious establishment of one country, but the whole western propaganda of any war we got involved during the past years.

So which case was more important or serious? Our media portrayed the case of Pussy Riot as a sign of lack of freedom and democracy in Russia. Well, that is nothing new. Russia does not have the same values as the rest of Europe. The oligarchs rule Russia, so any attempt to compare western Europe and Russia in their version of democracy will always be western boasting to me. Not that we should not be proud of where we are as a society. But I find that we focus too much on the shortcomings of others and do not care what is going on in our hemisphere.

We tend to take our "freedom" for granted and try to force everyone else to strive to always to become like us. Have we ever wondered though how free we really are? We may have the privilege to say what we want, be who we want, live the life that we want, buy what we want, believe what we want......As long as we do not challenge the current status quo. In Russia they are not able to challenge their leadership or religion. Despite many protests, Putin is still in power and the Russian Orthodox Church has immense power and influence in the Russian everyday life.

But we are not very different, are we. Our elites have been established after WW2 and even though they keep changing by democratic votes, our societies do not fundamentally change. Has anyone ever questioned the current economic model until the economic crisis of the past 4 years hit our lands? Has anyone really understood why are we engaging in so many wars, who profits from all this and what do we get out of our involvement in them? Are we sure we get the right or necessary information from our leaders so that we can form our public opinion?

What Assange did was to challenge all this. He leaked confidential documents and provided us with information and evidence of many conspiracy theories that we suspected. No, I do not consider him a saint or a great guy. He was a hacker in the past and that to me translates as a very naughty, megalomaniac, attention seeking, spoiled geeky child. But imagine if it wasn't for him and his actions, how we would have access to some confidential and disclosed data from the government of USA and others?

Some claim that his leaks were not of such importance, otherwise he would be dead by now. Then I wonder why all this diplomatic row between four states (US that are after him for the leaks, Sweden that provides the justification for his prosecution, Britain that tried to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden and of course Ecuador), over a megalomaniac hacker with a bad attitude and sex crime allegations from his past. Why didn't those women in Sweden go after him all this time and only try to get him after he leaked those documents? Is that a coincidence? The British government even threatened to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London by force at some stage, a move that can be received as an act of war in other circumstances. And why the Latin Americans decided to intervene?

I remind you that Latin America is one of the regions that was harmed the most by US foreign policies and intervention. And it is not just Ecuador. All the Latin American states showed their solidarity and support for Ecuador's decision in a summit of the Organization of American States. That left only the US and Canada not backing Ecuador. And there is no surprise there.

Why are the Latin Americans so keen in supporting and fostering Assange? I am sure they are playing their game in the whole story. Perhaps we are being told only a fraction of what is really going on in this diplomatic row and there is more to come. Perhaps he knows far too much and our elites fear that he has far more important documents to leak than those that he leaked already. Perhaps he has put forward some demands and holds our governments in ransom. I do not believe that all this diplomatic row took place just for some alleged rape allegations. Rapes that according to these ladies he committed in 2010 and he subsequently denies.

But our media are portraying Assange's case as the case of someone who has done something very naughty and embarrassed many governments and businesses, not as a case of freedom of speech or information. I believe that we needed to know how our leaders do business, we need more transparency on how some deals and agreements are done. If it takes a hacker to provide us with this information then so be it. I would not expect our governments to reveal those details anyway.

So where is the difference with the Pussy Riot case? In my opinion there is none. These bold girls wanted to protest against their country's political establishment and challenge the status quo there. They are bold, naughty and in my opinion they knew very well what they were doing when they were doing it. They knew they are going to get in trouble. And kudos to them for doing what they did. But while in our societies, singing a punk rock song in a church with anti establishment lyrics can lead in the worse case scenario into a night in jail and lots of controversy (and publicity), those girls now are jailed for 2 years.

Assange wanted to challenge the status quo in our side of the hemisphere, that is that of hypocrisy, secrecy, withholding the truth and  ignoring the wishes of the people. Both did what they did perhaps with a wish to become famous, get attention and create controversy. They both achieved it. The unlucky girls in Russia got jailed for it, Assange escaped thanx to Ecuadorian intervention. If Britain had it its way, he would be arrested too and extradited to the US to be silenced. So where is the difference between the two? And why our media are focusing in portraying the situation in Russia as much worse? Perhaps to make us believe that we are doing better in our societies, and that we should be thankful to be "westerners."

The only thing that annoys me about our attitude is that it is simply arrogant and it does no good in solving disputes with third countries. Yes Russia has a democratic deficit. Hasn't Europe got one too? Yes Russia has limited freedoms in the press and of political campaigning. Well in Europe we have our own problems too. Look at Greece, Hungary, Italy for years with Berlusconi and even Britain with the huge Murdoch media scandal.

If we want to help the citizens of one country to get access to more rights, then the way is not by criticizing their elites or how they lack of democracy. That only gives their elites fuel to keep up the anti-western propaganda. The more we snub them, criticize them or refuse to do business with them unless they change, the more their elites justify their actions and the need for them to keep staying in power, in order to protect their country against any "western" humiliation, propaganda, or intervention. 

The best way to help the Russian (or any other country) citizens in their struggle to better their country would be more cooperation and exchanges between our universities, cultural projects, science, media, volunteering agencies, labor markets and businesses. When the Russian population, after their interaction with the rest of Europe is convinced that "our" way has to offer is the slightest better of what they have, then they will ask for change themselves in their own time, terms and way. And then we should help them, but only if they ask.

I support both Pussy Riot and Assange in what they did and I admire them for doing so. I wish that more people in both sides of our world did more things to challenge their countries' elites and the current status quo. Because apathy brings no changes. Because democracy needs boldness, sacrifices and constant vigilance. Because it is the only way for real change.