Spying is not an acceptable practice between "partners!"

Yesterday the German magazine "Der Spiegel," featured an article that claimed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.

Der Spiegel cited from a September 2010 "top secret" document of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which it said fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had taken with him and which the weekly's journalists had seen in part. 

 The document explicitly called the EU a "target". (Reuters).

If that is true, I think Europe should proceed to a total reevaluation of its relationship with its closest "partner." Such behavior is anywhere near acceptable between long standing allies, like the US and Europe have been; or so we thought. These are practices that the US was practicing during the Cold War on its enemies like the USSR. 

If they use such practices on EU offices, imagine what they do to the missions of smaller nations. They behave like the big brother of this world and it has to stop. These are not signs of an alliance and equal partnership, rather a surveillance and dominance. 

I guess they will always carry the complex of superiority and rightful leader of the Western nations, but do we have to put up with it? The "West" is a far broader political and cultural entity, to be highjacked, monopolized and dominated solely by America.

Recently the EU and US are trying to proceed to a free trade agreement, that will boost the cooperation and boost both partners' economies. Militarily Europe is also a close ally of the US, with almost every EU member belonging to the NATO as well. 

All new EU states plus the candidate ones, have rushed to join the alliance in order to receive help with their military upgrading and "protection" from the USA. So why do we need to be subjected to US surveillance? I believe that our leaders must demand an explanation about this, as soon as possible.

It is time to seek new important and key alliances with other countries or blocks of this world. In a ever growing multi-polar world, we need to be free in our formation of foreign policy and promotion of our interests in the globe. An attachment to the hip with the USA plus a surveillance program by them, not only does not allow us to achieve such goal, but it shows that there is no trust among the two sides.  

And how can there be an alliance or partnership without trust? Perhaps we should distance ourselves from America and form our own foreign policy and influence in the world. The close partnership will still be in place, but only as an equal one with respect for one another.

So far we have been following and supporting America in all its positions or actions in the world, but that is leaving us with a lack of independent European oriented foreign policy. 

How can Europe ever become a big influential global player, if we are America's sidekick and being told what to do, follow or who to engage with? Plus we are being spied upon to make sure that we comply or we are not hiding anything from the Big Brother. Why do we need to reach such a low spot?

How will other regions of the world perceive us and they treat us with respect, if we allow America to treat us like that? Politically, militarily or economically if Europe unites it can make it on its own without the help, protection or surveillance by anyone. If we combine our resources, armies and start speaking with one voice in the world, we will have to fear nothing. 

We are already the biggest and richest market in the world, but we could become something more than that if we put our minds and effort into it. I do not wish for Europe to become the next "super-power," in the sense that the USA is right now, although we could well be. 

But at least we should be able to safeguard our own interests without the interference by anyone and form alliances and partnerships on an equal level, rather being always the underdog. And the only way to do that is if we truly unite and start working together as a team, putting aside our differences. 

Instead of that our leaders prefer to individually visit the US, seeking to boost their self importance. They promote their countries' elites interests and agree on deals with America, that often are becoming an obstacle for European unification. 

Divided as we are, we are being ruled we have to understand that. There can be no time for pitiful little political or economic favors of one European state against another in the future. Our economies are so intertwined that if one fails, it affects all others anyway as we have witnessed from the current crisis.

The world is changing and we must change with it. We are half way there, so what are we waiting for? 

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρός τον Πρόεδρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, τον Πρόεδρο του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου και τον Πρόεδρο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

Αξιότιμοι Κύριοι Πρόεδροι,

Ανησυχούμε βαθύτατα για το μέλλον της Ευρώπης.

Η συνεχιζόμενη πολιτική, κοινωνική και οικονομική κρίση απειλεί και πάλι να διαιρέσει την ήπειρο μας.

Η αποτυχία να χειριστούμε αποτελεσματικά την κρίση έχει δημιουργήσει μεγάλη δυσπιστία πρός τα θεσμικά όργανα τηςΕυρωπαικής  Ένωσης, μεταξύ των ίδιων των πολιτών της.

Ο λαϊκισμός και ο εθνικισμός είναι σε άνοδο σε όλα τα μέλη-κράτη και υπάρχουν στον απόηχο της κρίσης ισχυρές πολιτικές φωνές, που υποστηρίζουν ανοιχτά τη διάλυση της ένωσης μας.

Αυτή είναι μια πολύ επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη!

Η κρίση οδήγησε επίσης στη δημιουργία μιας σειράς οργανώσεων ευαισθητοποιημένων πολιτών που υποστηρίζουν την ανάγκη για μια πιο δημοκρατική, ισχυρή και αλληλέγγυα Ευρώπη.  

Αυτοί οι οργανισμοί και τα άτομα παίρνουν διάφορες πρωτοβουλίες, όπως τη δημιουργία φόρουμ για τη συζήτηση, την ενημέρωση και την ενίσχυση της συμμετοχής των πολιτών στην οικοδόμηση της μέλλοντικής Ευρώπης των πολιτών.

Είμαστε όλοι πολύ περήφανοι για ότι η Ευρώπη έχει καταφέρει τα τελευταία 60 χρόνια, αλλά μπορούμε επίσης να δούμε ότι το διακυβερνητικό σύστημα δεν μπορεί πλέον να ανταποκριθεί στις προκλήσεις της σύγχρονης Ευρώπης.  

Το σύστημα αυτό έχει μία ιεραρχική προσέγγιση, η οποία δημιουργεί ένα μεγάλο χάσμα μεταξύ των ηγετών και των πολιτών. Οι πολίτες ψάχνουν για εναλλακτικές λύσεις σε αυτό το κλιμακωτό σύστημα. Επιδιώκουν τη συμμετοχή, τη δημοκρατία και τη λογοδοσία.

Το δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα που πλήττει χρόνια την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν είναι πλέον ανεκτό. Η κρίση έχει καταστήσει πολύ σαφές πώς αν θα σώσουμε την Ευρώπη, χρειαζόμαστε για την ανοικοδόμηση της όχι μόνο οικονομικές, αλλά κοινωνικές και πολιτικές μεταρρυθμίσεις.

Βρισκόμαστε σε ένα σταυροδρόμι. Ο τρόπος που θα επιλέξετε θα επηρεάσει πολλές γενιές στο μέλλον. Αυτή είναι χωρίς αμφιβολία η μεγαλύτερη πρόκληση που μία ενωμένη Ευρώπη θα έχει να αντιμετωπίσει.  

Η Ευρώπη κινείται είτε πρός μια ομοσπονδία ή μία διάλυση. Με την διάλυση πιθανότατα η Ευρώπη θα κατευθυνθεί σε μια νέα εποχή των διαιρέσεων και των κρίσεων που κανένας από εμάς δεν θέλει να ζήσει, ή να αφήσει ως κληρονομιά για τα παιδιά και τα εγγόνια μας.

Ένας αυξανόμενος αριθμός των πολιτών βλέπει μια ομοσπονδιακή Ευρώπη ως την πιο ρεαλιστική, μακροχρόνια λύση για την Ευρώπη. Το ερώτημα είναι, αν θα πρέπει η ομοσπονδία αυτή να βασίζεται πάνω στα θεμέλια των πολιτών ή τα έθνη-κράτη.

Η επιστολή αυτή αντικατοπτρίζει την ισχυρή πεποίθηση μίας ομάδας ευρωπαίων πολιτών από πολλά κράτη μέλη και σας προσκαλεί, τον Πρόεδρο José Manuel Barroso, Πρόεδρο Herman Van Rompuy και τον Προέδρο Martin Schulz να προβείτε πρός μια νέα φάση της μεταρρύθμισης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αυτή που οδηγεί πρός μια δημοκρατική ομοσπονδία των πολιτών .

Για μια Ευρώπη που όλοι θέλουν να ζήσουν.

Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση 29.06.2013.

Η παρούσα επιστολή γράφηκε απο τον Matthias Darmell στο μπλογκ του MaDarmell "About Europe." Μετάφραση, Χρήστος Μουζεβίρης. Μπορείτε να προσυπογράψετε την επιστολή και να ενισχύσετε την προσπάθειά μας εδώ. Είμαστε μία ομάδα ευαισθητοποιμένων μπλόγκερ-πολιτών που προσπαθούμε για την εκδημοκράτιση της Ευρωπα'ι'κής Ένωσης και της Ευρώπης.

ERT: How to shut down a national broadcaster!

While I was visiting my home country this summer, something that hasn't happen since the Nazi occupation of the country took place once again.

Greece's national broadcasting channel, ERT (ΕΡΤ) was shut down with a snap decision by the country's PM, Mr. Samaras.

All of its three TV channels were shut down overnight with very little notice, debate or public consultation. There have been of course efforts to reform the establishment since the crisis begun, but they were turned down by the channel's executives and employees.

It is no secret that ERT, like most other Greek state owned companies needed reforms and a good shake up. There have been numerous scandals and many more rumors about the way that the Greek national broadcaster operated for decades. 

All Greeks agree that something needed to be done, but most of us disagree with the way it was done. Imagine if Britain for example decided to shut down BBC overnight, because some of its executives were overpaid and there was evidence of corruption. A national broadcasting channel is under the ownership of the nation, it is a national symbol and so it should only be shut down if the nation demands so.

Greece is not the only European country that witnessed chronic corruption in its state media. How about Italy and many more EU states? In which country the Prime Minister ever decided, without the agreement of the leaders of the co-governing parties, to shut down the national broadcaster?

Mr. Samaras literally gave an ultimatum on the morning of the 11th of June that at 23.00 pm, the signal of all three channels of ERT will be terminated. There have been rumors even that some of Mr. Samaras well-doers went and cut the wires in some stations, forcibly shutting down their signal. 

In this way and in times of a severe crisis, 2,700 ERT employees were suddenly found themselves unemployed. I do not understand how this can help the country's economy, by increasing the number of the job seekers while you create no new job opportunities in the country.

I personally liked ERT and its programs, as its channels were the only ones in Greece that kept some quality standards. While most of the other private owned channels broadcast reality shows, gossip/life-style chat shows and Turkish soap operas, ERT was occasionally producing interesting documentaries, educative shows for kids and adults alike.

Of course that is not enough to keep ERT going the way it was. But not all of its employees were overpaid, lazy and useless to the broadcaster and the state. Some of them were just doing their job, but they were sacrificed to punish the few overpaid executives, or some employees who got the job just because of their affiliation to a certain political party.

If Mr. Samaras wanted to clean up ERT why didn't he just fire those who were not useful, or slash the salaries of the highly paid executives? He showed a very decisive stance in his effort of finding a solution, but why did he chose to close ERT altogether?

Following the closure of ERT, there have been many reactions by its employees, the public and the other two party leaders that form the coalition government, Mr Venizelos of PASOK and Mr. Kouvelis of DIMAR. The later decided eventually to leave the coalition government, leaving Mr. Samaras and his New Democracy party with a very dangerously thin majority government.

Mr. Samaras allegedly did not seek the agreement of the other two leaders, who openly have distanced themselves from him since his drastic action to shut down ERT. There have been protests outside the buildings of ERT and a general strike of most journalists in Greece, in support of their colleagues in ERT.

That has left the country without a news broadcast for almost a week and a havoc in the streets of many Greek major cities, due the strikes organized by the Journalists' Union of the country. It has also affected the sensitive political stability of the country, that is crucial for Greece's economic recovery and reforms.

During the first week after Mr. Samaras' decision, there was very little information on his future plans about ERT. In the beginning it was announced the final closure of the station and the reopening of a new state broadcaster in the days that would follow. Following the reactions by the other two coalition parties and the public, it was announced that ERT would reopen until the establishment of this new state channel.

It was also stated that many of the ERT employees would be reemployed by the new channel. Some rumors mentioned that they would have to accept a new, much lower salary from what they were earning with ERT and a new type of contract. Nothing was clear for days, as debates and negotiations were taking place daily between the government parties and many assumptions and scenarios were discussed in the privately owned media.

Even now the situation is not clear and Greece will most likely have general elections by autumn, as most analysts predict. The Greek public is also divided. Most disagree or feel outraged by Mr. Samaras' decision, but there are those who support it. In their view, it was about time something to be done about ERT and they feel little compassion of its employees. They see them as opportunists that got their job by having government connections.

That is true for some of them, but again I do not like generalizations. It is not only their fault that the Greek political system was based on blind party support, in exchange for a good job in the public sector. The blame should fall on all of us, who tolerated such political reality.

And by cutting 2,700 jobs, you immediately remove 2,700 salaries that were contributing into our economy and market. That is not good for all of us, as it does not help our economy in a period that there are no jobs around.

Plus we do not have sufficient information on who will run this new state broadcaster. There have been various efforts in many other countries of Europe, notably Hungary and recently Bulgaria in changing the rules in national media. They all have met the public's opposition and with a good reason.

When a government decides to take drastic control of a country's media, we should all be alarmed. In Greece's case the situation is even worse, as it was not a majority government that made that decision, rather just one of the parties that form the coalition government.

What guarantees do we have about the future of free and fair media in Greece, since we do not even know when, how and with what criteria this new "better" national broadcaster will be formed? Who and how will control it and who will be involved?

And in the end of the day if Mr. Samaras wants to really show his fist and make further drastic reforms in Greece, will he proceed with similar decisiveness in reforming the Greek Parliament and the Greek political system? It is there where the hammer must fall harder, as it is the root of all injustice and corruption in the country.

Muting dissident journalists that uncover government scandals, stopping protests by using violence, forbidding strikes of public servants (notably the teachers that were threatened with arrest or dismissal if they went ahead with their strike plans over further wage cuts), are not practices that happen in a democratic country. Greece is slipping backwards socially, politically and culturally in a economic crisis fueled new kind of fascism. 

I am reserving my final judgement for the outcome of Mr. Samaras' and the current government's actions for the future. I agree that some drastic measures must be taken, in order to proceed with the much needed reforms for our country. But so far we have seen only economic reforms that impoverish our people and benefit the global economic elites.

No political reforms were ever made in Greece or Europe in general since the crisis, that will offer long term solutions to our woes. And that is why I am very skeptical of the motives behind these reforms.

Stockholm riots reflect European immigration policy failures.

Last weekend marked the beginning of a rather surprising event, the riots by immigrants in a Stockholm suburb, Husby. The riots lasted for almost a week and they erupted after the death of an elderly man in the immigrant suburb shot by police, for allegedly having a machete inside his house. 

The riots took by surprise not just the Swede's themselves, but the rest of the world too. It was not long ago that the Economist magazine suggested that the Scandinavian, especially the Swedish model should be a role model for the rest of Europe. If immigrants do not feel happy in a role model society, then what hope do the rest of us have in achieving a successful immigration policy that will successfully result in a multicultural society?

A few years back it was the turn of Paris and many other cities in France, but also later in Britain. Even in my home town of Thessaloniki we witnessed smaller scale riots by Nigerian immigrants. Obviously the immediate conclusion in those cases, was that the riots started by the inequality and discrimination the immigrants in these countries receive.

But in the Swedish case there was no such thing. Husby was built in the 1970s as part of the "Million Programme" that aimed to give affordable housing for all Swedes, the estate is one of dozens on Stockholm's outskirts that now house mainly immigrant populations, including large numbers from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, comparisons to the Paris "banlieus", or indeed riot-hit Tottenham or Salford, are limited. Between the rows of clean-looking housing blocks are well-tended flowerbeds and neatly- kept public gardens, and in the shopping precinct, where an ornamental fountain still bubbles away, there are bars, shops, and a smart cafe-bakery that would not look too out of place in an IKEA catalogue. At eight per cent, Husby's joblessness rate is three times the Swedish average, but only slightly higher than that in the UK.(From the Telegraph.)

Some answers can be given from the immigrant community in Stockholm itself. Mohammed Abdu, 27, whose family came to Sweden from Eritrea when he was aged three, and who now works as a security guard. While he condemned the violence as "hooliganism", he claimed that many Husby residents still suffered from discrimination from the police and employers.

Besides, he added, living in such a prosperous, advanced country offered no real satisfaction for those so conspicuously at the bottom of the heap. "It's true that the welfare system here is an example to the rest of the world, so if you fall here you do not fall all the way to the bottom," he said. "But people don't like being dependent on social welfare, and there is hidden racism."(From the Telegraph.)

In other words even in a very successful society like Sweden, we haven't managed to beat racism and discrimination or even integrate totally our immigrant communities. The far Right is gaining ground in Sweden and is challenging the policies of tolerance that the country held so dear for decades. They now amount up to 10% of the vote and this may increase in the coming years until the elections.

The riots by the immigrants certainly won't help in restoring the public's confidence in multiculturalism. Besides it was in Sweden's neighbor Norway that the far right enthusiast Anders Breivik, committed his atrocities. And in Finland the rise of the True Finns political party, does not exclude Scandinavia from the regions of Europe that see an increase in nationalism. 

These events bring up once again the question of the future of Europe's policies on immigration. Is multiculturalism a failed idea and model of society? Perhaps we are naive to expect that totally different people, from different backgrounds and religion can just get along and live side by side.

And if so how can we at least stop the violent outbursts that occur, either as riots by immigrants in Sweden or the violence against immigrants themselves that happen in Greece?

Is it the background of the immigrants that spark the race based clashes, their religion, race or simply the social inequality? Perhaps the events are linked to a wider clash of civilizations that take place in our world, making Europe and the West in general the immediate hate figure of certain immigrant communities. Because of our involvement in military campaigns in Muslim countries, our immigrants get radicalized not by the inequality that exists in our countries but because of our involvement in these campaigns.

Or maybe they are linked to a greater social inequality and injustice upheaval, that affects immigrants the most. Do we always treat them fairly and are all of our policies meant to help them?Perhaps we created second class citizens in our countries, by exploiting and taking for granted our immigrants.

But also do they really want to be integrated in our communities, or they are forced to seek a better future in our countries because the situation back in their own? But they have no real plans to integrate themselves in their new home and accept our culture as theirs. So why do we keep allowing them in our countries?

Should we reconsider some of our policies and have a debate on what do Europeans want, how do they see their countries in the future? Perhaps the Swedish past governments took for granted that the model was successful and never bothered to do a health check on how the two communities got along.

These clashes come as Godsend to those who always opposed multiculturalism and they are going to use them as an argument. In times of financial crisis and a general political, economic and ideological upheaval, it is very dangerous to allow certain groups to use such incidents to promote their agenda. Or perhaps such incidents are incited by such groups to achieve their goal and change the political culture of Europe, that encouraged multiculturalism until now.

We mustn't ignore such incidents, or bypass them as irrelevant. If we can not integrate immigrants from certain ethnic groups, then perhaps we should focus in attracting immigrants from regions with a culture closer to ours. Like Latin America for example. Understanding and acceptance goes both ways, but they are gained only through dialogue. A dialogue both between the communities and between the state and its citizens.

And none of the above has ever happened successfully in Europe, in fear of being branded racists, xenophobes and backward countries.  There are certain human rights groups, who with great narrow mindedness block any real debate on the issue. They are not helping.

Being a progressive country is not "in" or the new "must." It happens gradually and with a lot of effort. Sweden had years of political stability and peace, since it was lucky not to get involved in the two wars that ripped the rest of the continent apart. So they were able to create the social model that most of the rest of Europe envies.

But perhaps its leaders were naive or optimistic enough to think that their country can be unaffected of what is going on in the rest of the continent or the world. If there is a general dissatisfaction with multiculturalism, or certain political and economic norms in Europe, Sweden is influenced by them as part of Europe. Either they actively participate in them or not. And perhaps the real cause of these riots has nothing to do with a Swedish "failure,"rather is an echo of a broader European and global transformation.

Πρός Θεσσαλονικείς.

Έφτασε και πάλι το καλοκαιράκι, ο καιρός που με λαχτάρα ταξιδεύω και πάλι στα πάτρια εδάφη, να επισκευτώ φίλους και συγγενείς στην γενέτειρά μου την Θεσσαλονίκη. Κάθε φορά όμως που κατεβαίνω στην πόλη μας, η επίσκεψη μου αφήνει μια πικρή γεύση.

 Όχι δεν είναι εξ'αιτίας της οικονομικής κρίσης, σας πληροφορώ ότι είναι εξ'αιτίας της άθλιας κατάστασης που διατηρείτε εσείς που μείνατε στην Θεσσαλονίκη την πόλη μας.

Τον περασμένο χρόνο που επισκεύθηκα την Θεσσαλονίκη έφριξα από την κατάντια της πόλης. Και όχι δεν φταίει μόνο ο Δήμος ή οι τοπικές αρχές, αλλά και εσείς οι ίδιοι που απ'ότι φαίνεται σας αρέσει να ζείτε σαν ανάγωγα παλιόπαιδα σε μια από τις σημαντικότερες ιστορικά πόλεις της Ελλάδας, των Βαλκανίων αλλά και της Ευρώπης.

Ανεξέλεγκτες αφισοκολλήσεις στην πλατεία Αριστοτέλους, από αριστερούς ανάγωγους κάφρους και οργανώσεις φοιτητών στα πανεπιστήμια της πόλεις μας. Αυτά μαζι με τα άπειρα πολιτικά συνθήματα γραμμένα με σπρέυ στους τοίχους κάθε νεοκλασσικού κτιρίου και όχι μόνο.

Οι αθεόφοβοι πήγαν και μου έγραψαν ακόμη και έξω από τον Πύργο τον Λευκό, πάνω στα καινούρια μάρμαρα όπου ο Δήμος περίφραξε το πιο γνωστό μνημείο και σύμβολο της πόλης μας. Πάνω στα κάστρα τα ίδια, έξω από την Ροτόντα και τον ναό του Αγ. Μηνά στο κέντρο της πόλης. Δηλαδή σε ότι μας απόμεινε από την μακρά ιστορία της πόλης, έχετε βαλθεί να μουτζουρώσετε χωρίς κανένα σεβασμό.

Και απορώ ποιοί είναι αυτοί οι ανόητοι, και από τί σπίτια προέρχονται που νομίζουν ότι κάτι καταφέρνουν με αυτή την συμπεριφορά τους. Και πώς εσείς οι υπόλοιποι Θεσσαλονικείς ανέχεστε να βλέπετε τέτοια εκτρώματα στην πόλη όπου ζείτε, το σπίτι σας δηλαδή και δεν αντιδράτε.

Ποιές είναι αυτές οι μανάδες που αφήνουν τα κακομαθημένα τους τέκνα να καταστρέφουν δημόσια περιουσία, και από ποιά σχολεία αποφητούν τέτοιοι ηλίθιοι! Ποιός ο ρόλος των δασκάλων μας?

Έρχομαι συνεπώς στο θλιβερό συμπέρασμα οτι οι νεο-Έλληνες είναι αμαθείς και άξεστος λαός, που δεν του αξίζει κανένας απολύτως σεβασμός ή θαυμασμός. Όταν εσείς οι ίδιοι έχετε βαλθεί να μετατρέψετε την πόλη όπου ζείτε σε ένα απέραντο κωλοχανείο, πώς περιμένετε να σας σεβαστούν εσάς και την χώρα σας οι άλλοι λαοί?
 

Η εικόνα που παίρνει ένας επισκέπτης από μια πόλη που επισκεύτεται, λέει πολλά για την κουλτούρα, την νοοτροπία και την νοημοσύνη των κατοίκων της πόλης αυτής. Όταν εσείς παρουσιάζετε αντί για ομορφιά ένα χάος, αντί για καλαισθησία μουτζούρες, και αντί για τέχνη επιγραφές του τύπου "Γαμώ τον Θρύλο και τον Πειραιά," σε κάθε πάρκο της πόλης και νεοκλασσικό κτίριο, ε τότε να μην παραπονιέστε όταν δεν σας υπολογίζουν οι ξένοι λαοί.

Δεν έχετε αφήσει δημόσιο κτίριο, αρχαίο μνημείο η εξωτερικό ναού που να μην έχετε μουτζουρώσει με συνθήματα, πολιτικού η αθλητικού περιεχομένου. Στην καινούρια παραλιακή οδό που μόλις φτιάχτηκε, κάποιοι αθεόφοβοι πήγαν αφισοκόλλησαν και έγραψαν ήδη της βλακείες τους, μετατρέποντας πολύ γρήγορα την αναπλασμένη παραλιακή οδό σε ενα γιαπί.

Και δεν μπορώ να καταλάβω γιατί αυτοί οι νεο-ψευτο-Τσε Γκεβάρα του κερατά νομίζουν πώς άμα ψεκάσουν της αναχρονιστικές αριστερές ιδεολογίες τους, κάτι καταφέρνουν. Τα χρόνια του Πολυτεχνείου πέρασαν παιδάκια. Τότε οι νέοι εκείνης της εποχής αγωνίστηκαν για κάτι, για μια δημοκρατική Ελλάδα. Εσείς γιατί συνεχίζετε να ψεκάζετε συνθήματα στους τοίχους? Αν έχετε τόση ανάγκη για αυτοέκφραση, πάρτε ένα σπρέυ και ψεκάστε το σπίτι της μάνας σας μέσα έξω, να σας καμαρώνει γα'ι'δούρια.

Έχετε κολλήσει σε μια ιδεολογία που δεν έχει να προσφέρει τίποτα πια στην χώρα μας. Και αυτό είναι ένας από τους λόγους που η χώρα μας είναι τόσο πίσω. Παράλογος ιδεαλισμός και κολλήματα σε πολιτικές ιδεολογίες του παρελθόντος, χωρίς καμία καινούρια ιδέα για να προχωρήσει η χώρα μπροστά. Τα Κομμουνιστικά/Αριστερά κόμματα της χώρας προωθούν αυτόν τον ιδεολογικό δεινόσαυρο και φανατίζουν τους νέους μας μέσα στα πανεπιστήμια της χώρας.

Ίσως ήρθε η στιγμή να καταργήσουμε το άσυλο των εκπαιδευτικών ινστιτούτων της χώρας, εάν αυτά παράγουν φανατισμένους πολιτικά, κλειστόμυαλους πολίτες και όχι άτομα με φιλελεύθερες ιδέες που χρειάζεται η χώρα μας.

Οι νέοι μας νομίζουν ότι με το να αφισσοκολήσουν ανεξέλεγκτα παντού, χωρίς σεβασμό στα μνημεία και νεοκλασσικά κτίρια της πόλης μας, ότι καταφέρνουν κάτι. Με συγχωρείτε αλλά εμένα μου φαίνεστε ως Δον Κιχώτες που μάχεστε ανεμόμυλους.

Καταστρέφοντας τα εθνικά κειμήλια που μας άφησαν οι παλαιότερες γεννεές, όσων έζησαν στην πόλη μας και δημιούργησαν με ένα όραμα ίσως για μια όμορφη πόλη, δεν δείχνετε καθόλου σεβασμό προς αυτούς. Και όχι μόνο. Προβάλλετε τον χείριστο χαρακτήρα σας σε ολόκληρη την Θεσσαλονίκη και τους κατοίκους της. Μας εξομοιώνετε όλους μας με την ηλιθιότητά σας και μας κατεβάζετε όλους στο ζωώδη επίπεδό σας.

Γιατί να πάτε να αφισοκολλήσετε πάνω στην πλατεία Αριστοτέλους δηλαδή? Χάθηκαν οι τοίχοι της γειτονιάς σας και των σπιτιών σας? Μια ωραία πλατεία μας έμεινε και εμάς, να έχουμε να προβάλλουμε την πόλη μας. Και εσείς ως καλοί ανθέλληνες πάτε και την καταστρέφετε. Γιατί αυτό είστε. Αν αγαπούσατε στο ελάχιστο την πόλη ή την πατρίδα σας δεν θα κάνατε ότι κάνετε.

Ως γνήσιοι εγκεφαλοπλυμένοι αναρχο-κομμουνιστές θέλετε να προσβάλλετε το κάθε τι "εθνικό" ή Ελληνικό, αλλά δυστυχώς το μόνο που καταφέρνετε είναι να υποβιβάσετε το βιωτικό επίπεδο των συμπολιτών σας και αυτό με κάνει εχθρό σας.

Όσο για τους ανεγκέφαλους οπαδούς των διαφόρων ποδοσφαιρικών ομάδων, που εκφράζουν τα αισθήματα τους προς ένα ποδοσφαιρικό όμιλο, τι να σας πώ? Είστε ηλίθιοι και να σας χαίρονται η μανάδες σας για τους μαλάκες που έχετε γίνει. Άμα δηλαδή νομίζετε ότι οι ομάδες σας θα σας δώσουν δουλειές, πρόοδο, ευκαιρίες, μόρφωση και πολιτισμό και τις υποστηρίζετε φανατικά με το να ψεκάρετε την πόλη με βλακώδη συνθήματα ε τότε σας λυπάμαι.

Πόσοι από εσάς έχετε ταξιδέψει στο εξωτερικό, και που στο διάολο είδατε τέτοια καφρίλα? Γκραφίτι υπάρχουν παντού, αλλά είδατε κανένα πάνω στις κεντρικές πλατείες των άλλων Ευρωπα'ι'κών πρωτευουσών? Πάνω στα νεοκλασσικά τους κτίρια, ή σε οποιοδήποτε ιστορικό μνημείο? Όλοι οι άλλοι λαοί κοιτάνε να αναδείξουν την κουλτούρα τους και την πολιτισμική τους κληρονομιά. Εσείς κάνετε το αντίθετο και περιμένετε μετά να σας υπολογίζουν σαν ένα πολιτισμένο έθνος, τρομάρα σας.

Μια όμορφη και περιποιμένη πόλη, ντυμένη με πάρκα και καλοδιατηρημένα ιστορικά κτίρια ή μνημεία, προσελκύει τουρισμό και αυτό σημαίνει χρήμα και ευκαιρίες για ανάπτυξη και θέσεις εργασίας. Και εσείς κάνετε το αδύνατο δυνατό να καταστρέψετε αυτό το μέλλον ή πιθανότητα, με την βλακεία και την αμορφωσιά σας. 

Ο νεο-Έλληνας κάθε άλλο από πολιτισμένος είναι, και μου το αποδείχνετε κάθε φορά που επιστρέφω στην Θεσσαλονίκη. Είναι οι πολίτες που αντανακλούν και εκφράζουν την ψυχή της πόλης, ή μάλλον είναι μια άσχημη πόλη που γεννά άσχημους και άξεστους πολίτες? Η Θεσσαλονίκη είναι μια κακοκτισμένη πόλη που ενώ είχε πιθανότητες και πολλές ευκαιρίες, οι εκάστοτε διοικητές της την έχουν μετατρέψει σε μια επαρχειακή πόλη. Ας την χαιρόσαστε λοιπόν και ελπίζω κάποια μέρα να είστε ικανοί να την σεβαστείτε και να την φανταστείτε όπως της αξίζει.

The "grey" EU brokered agreement on Kosovo.

This week after last month's negotiations, the governments of Kosovo and Serbia have finally agreed to normalize their relationship.

This is apparently great news for both countries and the prospect of their EU membership bids, as well for European integration in general. It looks also as a great accomplishment for Baroness Catherine Ashton, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and her department.

Eventually we saw European diplomacy at work, that has produced some results after decades of a deadlock. Could this be the beginning of a collective European foreign policy? It looks promising but it is too early to say. There are many other issues to resolve and the European states seldom have a unanimous agreement.

Despite the success euphoria, for the moment there is very little information given on what exactly the normalization agreement really changes. The one thing that was made clear is that Serbia agreed to dismantle all its security structures by mid-July. In other words, Serbia is letting go militarily of the Kosovo territory. This clearly brings even closer the country's opening its EU membership negotiations.

The agreement normalizes policing, judicial and local government issues, as well as the representation of the Serbian minority in the above relative institutions. You may read a further report of the agreement here.The two countries also agreed not to block each other from any future international block membership.

A Serbian diplomat though, told euronews that the accord does not amount to Belgrade recognizing Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Then clearly that is not the end of the road, as the whole agreement has many grey areas.

It mainly focuses on ending the partition of the Serb and Albanian communities within Kosovo. I wonder why Europe hasn't focused on doing so with Kosovo itself within Serbia in the first place. This agreement is trying to normalize the relationship of the new Kosovo state with its Serbian minority. Yet for many years there was no effort in trying to achieve the same for the Albanian minority in the Serbian state.

Could we end up going in circles, while trying to deal with minority issues in a previous minority problem? Europe's aim was clearly to partition Serbia's territory and create an independent Kosovo state from the beginning. Serbia needed to get on with its EU accession talks, so it decided to compromise its former nationalist stance and show Europe that is willing to work with it in order to achieve EU membership.

The compromise though leaves the Serbs of Kosovo unhappy and fearing of their future. They have threatened to leave en-mass the Kosovo territory, if the deal does not work. There is clearly a lot of mistrust between the two communities and if there is any relapse of either party, we could be faced with trying to solve the Kosovo issue all over again.

This could lead Serbia to have to accommodate increasing numbers of Serbian refugees from Kosovo, if the agreement is not occasionally respected by either side. Could we have similar incidents like those of Northern Ireland, where violence erupts occasionally despite the Anglo-Irish agreement? The segregation of the communities in this region has not ended, though clearly the political and terrorism issues have widely been resolved.

Europe has always had interests in the Balkans and especially the former Yugoslavia states. It has played an active role in shaping the region and promoting the European powers' own agendas. Their involvement and position in the Kosovo issue has been clear from the start.

Is Europe trying to create smaller, dependent states in order to fulfill its integration and expansion process? Fragmenting totally all former regions of Yugoslavia, has left some of them dependent on European aid, protection or intervention. Kosovo was certainly such case until now. Is this a better solution than trying to keep the regions together?

From history and experience we know that not always Europe's interventions were successful, or if they were they came with side-effects for the local population. Hopefully this time, the EU's foreign affairs department has taken the interests of all citizens into consideration.

 

Athens new Mosque amid protests!

A new day of protests in Athens today, but this time they do not come as part of a massive anti-austerity movement. The Greeks are protesting against the Government's decision to go ahead with the construction of a new Mosque, in a poor central Athenian neighborhood.

The protests are organized by the conservative group, the National Front. They represent an ultra conservative side of the Greek mentality, that found fertile ground to spread with the economic crisis. Personally I think these protests are ridiculous and shameful for the Greek people.

Athens is the only European capital that does not have a mosque yet. Not that it is "progressive" to build one, rather an obligation for every country that has immigrant citizens of any religious background, to provide for their religious practices.

The fact that the majority of the Greek citizens are Greek Orthodox, does not mean that other religious groups should not be openly accepted and flourish in a secular society.

This conservative Greek reaction reveals a complex of our nation. Some Greek nationals have never recovered from the Ottoman oppressor inferiority complex and see anything Islamic as a threat. It also has to do with an outdated agreement between the newly formed Greek and Turkish states and their arrangements to manage religious minorities.

The two countries signed an agreement that made compulsory for Greece to built mosques, but only in the Thrace region where around 100 thousand Muslims live.The agreement made clear that no mosque would ever be built in Athens or any other major Greek city. The same agreement provided with some protection to the Greek Orthodox minority in Istanbul and the existence of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

Decades have passed since that agreement and both countries have changed a lot. Well apparently. Greece is an EU member state and Turkey an aspiring one. Both countries are secular, multiracial and multicultural. How can anyone justify such narrow minded mentality at this day and age?

As long as there are legal Muslim immigrants in Greece, that reside, work and contribute their taxes legally in the country, then the state is obliged to provide them with a mosque.

I understand that there is a general fear and mistrust among the Greeks for an "Islamic invasion," as it is currently exist in all European countries. It is also true that Greece has an extra reason to fear, as it has a large and powerful Islamic country as neighbor, contrary its most European  counterparts.

As long as the relations between the two states remain unstable, the Greeks can never really be comfortable with the expansion of Islam in their country. They have also have very bad memories in their recent history, from atrocities that the Turks committed on them during the Asia Minor disaster and the Greco-Turkish wars.

But these immigrants are not Turkish and they have clearly tried to distance themselves from Turkey. In a recent bid to interfere with the situation, the Turkish PM Mr. Erdogan offered to pay for the construction of the Mosque in Athens. The Pakistani community themselves rejected the move, as they clearly wanted to distance themselves from Turkey and disassociate the construction of the mosque as a Turkish initiative.

It is also true that not all Muslim immigrants in Athens are illegal and criminals or radicals. There have been many Muslim immigrants in Greece for many decades now, mainly from Arabic countries. My family is friends with a man from Sudan, married to a Greek woman. He has been working as a doctor in an Athens hospital for decades, but he is forced to practice his religion in private.

The Greeks also fear the radicalization of its Muslim migrants in the new mosque, like it has happened in other European countries like Britain. But there are already around 100 makeshift mosques throughout Athens, hiding from the public. Aren't these secret mosques a better ground for radicalization, rather an open Islamic institution financed by the state?

When the Greeks see the failures of other countries in integrating their Muslim immigrants, can they be willing to follow their path? In Britain we see how many terror attacks were actually committed by British-born Muslims. That is not a reason to fear a new mosque, but a reason to form better immigration policies, to attract and integrate the number and the kind of immigrants we need. Something that not just Greece, but Europe as a whole failed in doing so.

In Switzerland they banned the minarets for example, just so they do not remind them that they have Muslims in their country. While they do not mind them when they serve them their food in the restaurants they work, or clean after them in hospitals. Europe is still a conservative continent and we witness that even in countries like France, in their recent deep divisions on gay marriage.

The mosque will be built in Votanikos, a poor Greek working class area of Athens. It has no touristic importance and it won't alter the "Greek" heart and spirit of the city. Isn't it always that workers live in these poorer regions? Now that some of our workers are Muslims, shouldn't we show them that we accept them and prevent their radicalization because of our rejection and marginalization? We should learn from other countries' mistakes, not repeat them.

Έχετε δίκιο Κα. Αρβελέρ!

Πρόσφατα έτυχε να δω στο YouTube ένα βίντεο με συνέντευξη της Κας Ελένης Γλύκατζη-Αρβελέρ, της διάσημης Ελληνίδας Βυζαντιολόγου Ιστορικού στην Ελληνική τηλεόραση.

Η Κα. Αρβελέρ υποστήριξε ότι επιτέλους θα πρέπει να σταματήσουμε να αυτοαποκαλούμαστε "Έλληνες," αλλά Ρωμιοί. Διότι η Κωνσταντινούπολη και το Βυζάντιο, έχουν παίξει περισσότερο ρόλο στην πολιτισμική κληρονομιά της χώρας μας.

Το Βίντεο με την συνέντευξη της Κας Αρβελέρ μπορείτε να το δείτε εδώ.

Ναι Κα. Αρβελέρ, συμφωνώ απόλυτα μαζί σας. Έλληνες δεν είσαστε, είστε Ρωμιοί. Πολιτισμικά απόγονοι των Βυζαντινών και με καμία σχέση με τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Και λέω "είσαστε", γιατί δεν συγκαταλέγω τον εαυτό μου ανάμεσα σας.

Διότι όσο εσείς οι Ρωμιοί, οι Χριστιανοί Ορθόδοξοι δηλαδή και εάν προσπαθήσατε να σβήσετε το Ελληνικό πνεύμα, αυτό ακόμη διατηρείται στις ψυχές μερικών από εμάς, που ουδεμία σχέση δεν έχουμε με την Ορθοδοξία σας και την Βυζαντινή/Οθωμανική νοοτροπία σας.

Εμείς λοιπόν κοιτάξαμε να μεταναστεύσουμε στην πραγματική απόγονο και συνεχιστή της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής πολιτισμικής κληρονομιάς, την Ευρώπη. Κοιτάξτε γύρω σας, υπάρχουν περισσότεροι μαίανδροι, κίωνες όλων των ρυθμών, αγάλματα του Απόλωνα και της Αθηνάς, αλλά και του Όμηρου και του Αριστοτέλη στην Ευρώπη, παρά στην Ελλάδα. Γιατί εσείς οι Ρωμιοί μισήτε κάθε τι το Ελληνικό. Από τα Βυζαντινά τα χρόνια διώξατε τον Ελληνισμό και καταστρέψατε τους ναούς του, σταματήσατε τους αγώνες του και τον αθλητισμό.

Και ενώ όπως υποστηρίζετε στο βίντεο διατηρήσατε την Ελληνική γραμματεία, τους Έλληνες τους ίδιους τους εκδιώκατε ως "εθνικούς" και κοιτάξατε να τους αφομοιώσετε στην κουλτούρα σας. Μια θεοκρατική απολυταρχική τυρρανία, όπου κάθε ίχνος ελεύθερης ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας ήταν απαγορευμένη. Γιαυτό και σήμερα ο Ρωμιός δεν έχει ίχνος καλαισθησίας και καλλιέργιας. Η Ελλάδα ήταν μέρος του Βυζαντίου, και όχι το Βυζάντιο Ελλάδα όπως μας έχετε εγκεφαλοπλύνει τόσα χρόνια να πιστεύουμε.Πού βλέπουμε σήμερα Έλληνες αρχιτέκτονες και σημαντικά αρχιτεκτονικά επιτεύγματα?

 Τί έχετε να επιδείξετε ώς Ρωμιοί ως έναν καινούριο Παρθενώνα? Κάθε αναπτυγμένος λαός, έχει χτίσει πολυάριθμα μοντέρνα αρχιτεκτονικά επιτεύγματα. Εσείς? Πού είναι οι διάσημοι Έλληνες μουσουργοί, σκηνοθέτες, ηθοποιοί, θεατρικοί συγγραφείς, ποιητές και φιλόσοφοι του σήμερα? Τί έχετε να επιδείξετε ώς έθνος? Ενώ έχετε καταφέρει να γίνεται περίγελος όλου του κόσμου, και από τις πιο συντηριτικές, οπισθοδρομικές χώρες της Ευρώπης. Πότε η "Ρωμυλία" σας θα γίνει μια Ευρωπαική χώρα, σύγχρονη με καινούριες ιδέες να δώσει στον παγκόσμιο πλέον πολιτισμό?

 Ότι μας έχετε αφήσει είναι εκκλησίες, και ακόμα τα μόνα κτίσματα που χτίζονται σήμερα με χρήμα και μεράκι ειναι οι Ορθόδοξες Εκκλησίες σας. Ότι άλλο έχουμε να αναδείξουμε ως χώρα μας τα έχουν αφήσει οι Έλληνες, οι Ρωμαίοι, οι Λατίνοι και οι κατακτητές μας οι Οθωμανοί. Απο τον Λευκό τον Πύργο στη Θεσσαλονίκη, τα κάστρα των Ιπποτών στην Ρόδο και τον Παρθενώνα στην Αθήνα.Τιποτα Βυζαντινό εκτός από εκκλησίες και υπολείματα τειχών.

 Ότι μνημείο και άγαλμα στολίζει σήμερα τα πάρκα μας, είναι αγωνιστών του '21 και ηρώων από τις "χαμένες πατρίδες" σας, ή ιερέων. Έτσι για να μήν ξεχνάμε την αυτοκρατορία όπου κατάγεστε και να μας κρατάτε πάντα όμηρους του παρελθόντος χωρίς να μπορούμε ποτέ να προχωρήσουμε μπροστά ώς έθνος και να εκμοντερνιστούμε. Τίποτα εικαστικό ή Ελληνικό δεν χτίζεται, και πώς να αναπτύξει ο "Ρωμιός" το αίσθημα της καλαισθησίας και της ποιότητας όταν το μόνο που ξέρει είναι η Ορθοδοξία σας και οι 'Αγιοι της θρησκείας σας.

Στα Σκόπια χτίζουν πύλες, με κίωνες και αγάλματα, και δεν τους ανήκουν. Εσείς χτίζετε ακόμα παρεκκλήσια, θαρρείς και δεν έχουμε αρκετά. Σε κάθε νέα γειτονιά που δημιουργείται, πρώτα μπαίνουν θεμέλια για μια νέα εκκλησία, και μετά για σχολεία και νοσοκομεία. "Ελλάς Πατρίς Ορθοδοξία" φωνάζουν οι ανόητοι Ρωμιοί οπαδοί σας, αχ και που να ήξεραν οτι καμία σχέση του καθ'αυτού Ελληνισμού και του Ορθόδοξου Χριστιανισμού που τους έχουν εγκεφαλοπλύνει. Και ακόμα καμία σχέση του Χριστιανισμού που δίδαξε ο ίδιος ο Ιησούς με αυτό το θεοκρατικό συντηριτικό έκτρωμα που ακολουθείτε σήμερα.

Γι'αυτό σας παρακαλώ μήν αποκαλείστε Έλληνες και μείνετε Ρωμιοί, και αφήστε εμάς τους Έλληνες στην καρδιά να ονειρευόμαστε την ημέρα που θα δούμε την πραγματική Ελλάδα να ξυπνά ξανά μια μέρα. Όταν ένας καινούριος Ελληνικός πολιτισμός θα κάνει την παρουσία του στον κόσμο.

Dublin II Regulation and its impact on Greece.

One of the main reasons that parties like the Golden Dawn in Greece have found fertile ground to spread, is of course the economic crisis. But it is not the only one. Illegal immigration into Europe, puts a strain on our societies' fabric as people are watching their neighborhoods being transformed rapidly.

In Athens for example illegal immigrants are wondering without purpose, often being forced to work illegally or engage in criminal activities to make a living. Because of that, the locals are not very welcoming towards them.

It is not just the fact that the demographics of the society are changing fast, there is also a case of lawlessness and corruption, whenever people and their future are kept in limbo. The Greek state's policies on immigration are to be blamed of course, but they are not the only cause of the problem.

The Dublin Regulation (or Dublin II Regulation) was adopted in 2003 by the EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, replacing the previous Dublin Convention of the '90s. The regulation came into effect in 2008 and since then it is the epicenter of lots of criticism.

It determines the EU Member state responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the EU. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU.

Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU. And that is where the first problem lies. Immigrants that enter one state do not necessarily want to stay there, rather are trying to reach the richer countries of Europe. By forcing them to remain in the bordering states, that in many cases are also "peripheral" economies, you condemn them immediately to an uncertain future.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers enter Europe from countries like Greece, Malta, Italy and Spain. Some of them are too small (Malta), or economically too weak at the moment (Greece) to deal with the sheer numbers of immigrants on their own.

So instead of a pan-European reaction to the problem, with a formation of a common European immigration policy, our governments chose to create hurdles for the unwanted immigrants and more bureaucracy to manage their flow.

But they also made it very difficult for countries on the borders of Europe to deal with the problem, plus they criticize them for any failure or mishandling. One of the principal aims of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state.

However since the country that a person first arrived in is responsible for dealing with the application, this puts excessive pressure on border areas, where states are often least able to offer asylum seekers support and protection. Currently, those being transferred under Dublin are not always able to access an asylum procedure. This puts people at risk of being returned to persecution.

Greece receives hundreds of  thousands immigrants, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in its borders per year. A small debt ridden country, with borders that are difficult to guard due to the fact that most of it is vast sea areas, is forced to provide for all the immigrants while it filters them before they reach the richer countries.

Athens has been transformed by its immigrant population and not always for the better. Immigrant gang groups are roaming the city, sometimes turning against each other and so knife crimes are not unusual. Prostitution is everywhere in the city's center and with it, all the unwelcome issues of human trafficking, exploitation, violence and corruption.

For a small, conservative until recently country like Greece, this problem combined with an economic crisis and depression, is enough to trigger a rise in nationalism and xenophobia. Violence turned from between the immigrant groups, to local people against all the immigrants in general,either legal or illegal.

According to European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and UNHCR the current system fails in providing fair, efficient and effective protection. It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions both by ECRE and UNHCR,that the regulation impedes the legal rights and personal welfare of asylum seekers, including the right to a fair examination of their asylum claim and, where recognized, to effective protection, as well as the uneven distribution of asylum claims among Member States.

Application of this regulation can seriously delay the presentation of claims, and can result in claims never being heard. Causes of concern include the use of detention to enforce transfers of asylum seekers from the state where they apply to the state deemed responsible, also known as Dublin transfers, the separation of families and the denial of an effective opportunity to appeal against transfers.

The Dublin system also increases pressures on the external border regions of the EU, where the majority of asylum seekers enter EU and where states are often least able to offer asylum seekers support and protection. (As written in Wikipedia).

In other words this system is unfair both to the immigrants themselves and to the bordering countries themselves. But instead of help, our European partners only offer us with their "constructive" criticism on how we deal with immigrants.

There is no denial that the Greek policies on immigration are almost non-existent and of course they are dysfunctional. But so are Europe's. Our partners enter a blame game instead of taking responsibility and acting on the issue collectively, helping the bordering nations to deal with illegal immigration and the asylum seekers.

They prefer to sustain their own "functioning" immigration policies and control their immigrant population, while the social coherence and stability of their partners are being put under extreme pressure. The bordering countries are acting like filters of the unwanted, plus they take all the blame for any failures. Sounds like the perfect plan!

The fortunes of the people who want a better life in our continent, are colliding with the ability of Europe to offer solutions to them and the native population. Either it is about jobs, security, peace, progress, stability and prosperity, Europe's policies are lacking of the collective agreement needed, vision and fairness. So there is no surprise that our continent is in crisis, but not just an economic one.

The Cyprus dispute.

Recently the EU Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs and the euro Mr. Olli Rehn, stated that "the re-unification of Cyprus would give a major boost to the economic and social development of the island."

 That is the wish of most Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish, but so far it failed to be materialized. In my opinion the majority of the inhabitants of the island are not quite ready to just "forgive and forget,"of either side.

Mr. Rehn's comments obviously tried to re-ignite the efforts for unification as the issue remains an unsolved problem that the EU inherited and a major obstacle in any effort in Turkey's EU membership. I do not think that it is a real argument, rather an effort to try and capitalize in the recent Cypriot banking crisis.

There was a same argument for the re-unification of Ireland in the past, when Northern Ireland was debating if it should remain as a part of the UK, go it alone or join the Republic. Northern Ireland relies heavily on Britain for financial support and the Republic did not show as much enthusiasm back then, while the Celtic Tiger was still "roaming."

So how can the two parts of Cyprus can be re-united, since the conditions are similar as well as the tensions. Some European states might want a quick solution to see Turkey joining the club or the Cyprus problem resolved, but I wish things were as easy. Europe must rally its best negotiators and diplomacy skills if it wants to achieve this and I haven't seen any serious will from the Europeans to do so.

I won't enter into an analysis of what happened in Cyprus, because most of us know and as a Greek I do not want to be seen that I side with the Greek Cypriot side. I will accept the facts that the Turkish side claim, that they invaded the island "to protect the Turkish Cypriots" from the violence they had to endure by the Greek Cypriots, during the events back in the '70s and the coup.

So if we accept the fact that Turkey was right to invade Cyprus, they could have invaded, stopped whatever was going on and then leave it to the UN to control the situation. The UN could then sanction the Greek Cypriots if they continued the violence, stop the island nation pursuing its unification dream with Greece and so solve the problem. The truth is that during those years of instability, both sides engaged in violent outbursts as they simply mistrusted each other, the majority still mistrusting the other side.

But the continuous illegal occupation of the island of Cyprus by Turkey is exactly that : illegal. No nation in the UN has recognized the "statelet" that Turkey has created. And that must send a clear signal to the Turkish side.

Turkey showed its true colors and intentions for the Cypriot occupation recently, when Israel and Cyprus started cooperating in the extraction of the vast amount of natural gas under the island. That is why the Turks invaded Cyprus and not because of all the other excuses. The island has a great geopolitical and strategic location with vast resources.

If we want the Cypriot problem ever to be resolved, Turkey must withdraw its troops from the island and recognize the Republic of Cyprus. It is ridiculous to want to join a international organization while you do not recognize the existence of one of its members.

The Greek Cypriots want to negotiate just with the Turkish Cypriot side, not Turkey itself that they see as an occupier. Perhaps we should leave them to it. And since Cyprus is in the EU, the EU will definitely monitor the situation to make sure that such violence never erupts again.

In fact the EU so far has not played any decisive role in the issue and I think it is about time to flex its muscle. It did so in the case of Kosovo and Serbia, why doesn't it do the same for Cyprus? Its role should not be that of telling off the Turks or making sure they comply. Rather that of over-sheering the negotiations and the situation on the island.

The problem that the Turkish Cypriots have towards the Greek side, is the lack of trust. They do not feel comfortable with a Greek Cypriot majority, that very often does not have their best interests in mind, also mistrusts them and does act always with impartiality. That is why they like the protection of their "Big Brother," Turkey.

Yet, the fears of the Turkish Cypriots could be just a past fear that is time to get over. The Republic is an EU member now, so even if the Greek Cypriots would want to treat them badly, I am sure the EU would be the first to slap the Greeks for violation of human rights. Things have changed since the '70s.

The Greek Cypriots on the other hand, must compromise with the fact that even if they are the majority of the island, others share the same land with them. Cyprus is a multicultural society, that includes many Armenians and Maronites apart the Greek and Turkish communities. Though they are the majority, sometimes they consider the island as "Greek"  only.

That hardline attitude is what fans the fears of the Turkish Cypriots, that do not generally want to be placed under the rule of the Greeks. Also the nationalist attitudes of the Greek Cypriots sometimes do not help any efforts for unification.

During the failed Kofi Annan plan for the re-unification of Cyrpus, many Greek Cypriots that supported the plan were bullied by the majority that rejected it. Some friends of mine from the island spoke of cars of people who placed "Vote Yes" signs during the referendum days, being smashed or damaged. That is not a sign of a democratic debate, or of a mature way to deal with a problem.

Of course I do not blame the ordinary citizens of Cyprus. Their then leadership, notably Tassos Papadopoulos the Cypriot PM, appeared very emotional on national television urging the Cypriots to vote NO. How could the people support the plan, even if they wanted to.

It is hard to convince people who lost loved ones and their homes, to accept that their former land and properties won’t necessarily be returned to them or get any compensation or apology. In these cases, populism prevails. History will judge the actions of the Greek Cypriot leadership and its decision to encourage their people to vote down the plan.

I also found the Annan plan unsatisfying and I would not have approved of it. Because it created a federation of two nations, with many separated and segregated zones. It would have established a limited right to return between the territories of the two communities. It would also have allowed both Greece and Turkey to maintain a permanent military presence on the island, albeit with large, phased reductions in troop numbers.

For me it is unacceptable for either Greece or Turkey, or even Britain-but that is another story, to have military bases in another EU state. And if we are talking about re-unification, then there can be no "limited return" between the territories. The plan obviously satisfied the Turkish demands for "protection" from the Greeks. And that is why it failed to convince the Greek Cypriot side.

The Greek Cypriot idea of unification is for things go back to where they were before. Perhaps a thing rather impossible after so many decades. Some compromise must come into place, if the Greek Cypriots really want to see their island as one again. They have to accept that they must give the Turkish Cypriots more guarantees of security and a greater political say and influence in the island's affairs.

But the plan appeared to them as a red flag to a bull, because it accepted the existence of a Turkish Cypriot "state," a thing that they deny. They see the territory of Northern Cyprus as a Cypriot one, occupied by a foreign military presence. Not that they ignore the existence of the Turkish Cypriots, rather they do not want to justify the existence of the Turkish settlers and the military personnel in their territory. Something that I totally agree with.

Accepting their existence, is like endorsing what happened and no Cypriot ever will do so. So the Annan plan, though having some very excellent points it failed because it ignored one major factor: the human emotions.

Should we ever try again to re-unite the island, both sides must compromise and move on from issues that brought Cyprus where it is now, issues of the past. If they start thinking as Cypriots and focus on what unites them rather what it divides them, plus if Turkey, Greece, Britain and the international community stop bringing their own interests on the table, then perhaps the dream of generations might come true.