EU Commission's role in Greek privatizations.

We read a lot about the need for reforms in Greece, to privatize and modernize its economy in order to reach the same levels of economic growth with its European partners.

The country has come under huge pressure from the EU and IMF to proceed with these reforms and they use the loans dispense, in order to force Greece to comply.

Indeed the country has gone through massive reforms in its infrastructure, that very few nations have achieved in such a short time. Lots more need to be done, but during the reformation period the EU and the Greek government, must also take into consideration the ability of the Greek people to cope.

Such drastic reforms have certainly taken a huge toll on the citizens' ability to adapt to the ever increasing demands of the EU Commission, that overseers the procedures.

Privatization of all Greek national assets and companies, was among the most popular reforms that the bail-out deal dictated, together with the reduction of the Greek public sector and its salaries.

Last month certain events have put the EU Commission's proposals or involvement in Greece, under an interesting perspective. The Greek state, after huge pressure by the EU Commission and its European counterparts to privatize its public companies, started negotiations with the Russian oil and gas giant, Gazprom. The plan was to sell DEPA, the state controlled natural gas provider, to the Russian multinational.

The deal failed the last minute. Greece's PM Mr. Samaras, announced the outcome of the negotiations in a live television broadcast, stating that the reasons of the collapse of the talks were "outside of the Greek government's responsibility or powers."

There was speculation that Moscow's decision to pull out had been dictated by geopolitical pressure. The United States and the EU have both made clear their distaste for Russia further increasing its influence over the European energy market. Brussels has openly grumbled about Moscow's business practices.

"I think the message the Russians got, especially from the European commission, was that the deal was not going to be approved," said Thanos Dokos who heads Greece's leading think-tank Eliamep. "In those circumstances they felt, 'why bother?'". (The Guardian).

The EU Commission's involvement in national affairs is unavoidable, since all EU states have agreed to give up some of their sovereignty in order to become EU members. It is in some cases favorable, as they can keep in check any national government's actions, law making and policy implementation procedures.

But in this case the EU Commission, which is well-known to be influenced by various lobbies located around its base in Brussels, intervened to promote these European and American companies' interests. It is clear now that they do not only demand privatizations, but they dictate Greece to whom to sell their national resources.


This bid by the Russians would instantly offer Greece a €900m deal, a much needed cash injection to the country that suffers the most during this crisis. The EU Commission seems to be delaying solutions, while it is positioning itself openly to a wider clash of interests. 

Is their involvement for the benefit of the Greek people or Greece itself? Their actions seem to be more as a part of the great geopolitical struggles in the region and beyond, that Europe and America in one side, are playing against the Russians.

Tension between the two sides has already been heightened by disagreements over Syria, with Moscow warning Britain and France against exporting arms to rebels fighting Bashar Assad and Russia reportedly providing the Syrian President with S-300 missiles. (New Europe).

The scandal of the bail-out agreement in Cyprus involving mainly Russian deposits in the Cypriot banking system, was also another fiasco that had consequences for the citizens of the island nation.They too paid the price for Europe's drastic crack down on the growing Russian influence in the region.

Throwing oil on fire, ahead of an EU-Russia summit that was scheduled for 3-4 June, Gazprom’s Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev on 30 May accused the European Commission of a politically-motivated attempt to bring down EU gas prices.

The Commission opened an investigation last September into Russian gas monopoly Gazprom, concerned Russia was abusing its position in central and eastern Europe and imposing unfair prices. EU member states such as Lithuania, which are almost totally dependent on Russian gas supplies, complain that they pay much higher prices for it than other EU countries.

The cost of energy is an issue for the EU as a whole. On 21 May, EU leaders meeting in Brussels vowed to bring down energy prices. The Commission has also questioned Gazprom’s business model and its preferred method of pricing gas - via expensive oil-pegged contracts.

“We have doubts about the motivation,” Medvedev told industry and EU officials, asked if the Commission's move was an attempt to “depress gas prices by artificial means” as opposed to through commercial negotiation. (New Europe).

So because Europe, Russia and America are caught in a trade and geopolitical war, the EU Commission decided that it was in the whole Europe's interests to kick the Russians out of Greece. For compensation they no doubt agreed to accept the Trans-Adriatic pipeline (TAP) crossing Greece, (also Albania and Italy) as the route to transport natural gas from Azerbaijan.

They are trying to solve the energy issue of Europe and that is a valid cause. But either we like it or not we are dependent to Russia for our gas. So unless we find alternatives to Russian gas, compromise with the Russians or try to find a carrot deal that will make them lower their prices, then we can't keep engaging in a diplomatic war for ever.


The deal itself may or may not have been the best for Europe or Greece, but the escalation of deterioration of our diplomatic relations is worrying. Especially when small and vulnerable states are caught up in the middle.

It is good that Europe is standing up, seemingly united against the Russian monopolies. But this solution can not be a permanent one. If we want cheaper energy, then perhaps it is time to invest in exploiting our own natural resources under a common European energy policy, rather rely on foreign multinationals or third party countries.

There are plenty of energy resources that we haven't exploited yet, both "green" and renewable or more conventional ones. If we show the Russians that we are not desperately relying on them for our gas, then they will be the ones who will offer us cheaper prices to keep us as their customers. As things stand, they do have a monopoly and they are doing nothing wrong in asking whatever price they want.

They simply are playing the rules of the open market. When you have a monopoly on something, you are exploiting it. That is how it works not just with Russia, but with all multinational companies. The ones who should be blamed is us, that we are too dependent on their gas exposing ourselves to their interests.

We will have to invest collectively in untangling the former USSR democracies like Lithuania, from their dependency in Russian energy. These countries, because they were a part of the Soviet block, are still relying on Soviet infrastructure to cover their energy needs. And that exposes them to Russian interests.

So instead of arguing with Russia trying to corner them in a compromise, we should diversify our energy needs and help those EU members that where formerly under Soviet rule. But does the EU Commission has such plan, or it is limited by either the national governments, or the lobbies that influence the policies it pursues?

Tax havens, Europe's hell?

Four years after the outbreak of the economic crisis in the euro-zone, we finally see some real evaluation of the European economic system and reality by our leaders. We have some strong voices stating that the EU needs a closer political integration, if it wants to keep the euro.

We see the first attempts of a banking union and deeper financial coordination. But also our leaders are realizing that one of the problems of the European economy was the very system that it was based on until now.

A system that it allowed, if not encouraged rich individuals or companies to retain their wealth by tax evading and transferring their wealth in off-shore shadow companies. It also allowed banking secrecy in some countries, better known as tax havens. Tackling tax evasion seems to be high on the political agenda at the moment, and it was even one of the main themes of the recent G8 summit in Lough Erne.

The European tax evasion problem is very high. Just look at the number of tax haven states in Europe, plus how rich they are and then you will understand how big the problem is. And no, tax evasion is not something that exists in the poor "corrupt" countries of the South or Eastern Europe. The biggest problem in fact exists in the richer nations.

Just notice where the majority of the tax haven states lie and under which nation's administration they fall. From Gibraltar, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Andorra, the City of London, Malta, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Cyprus. Most of them are in Western Europe and are attached to a rich Western European country.

But it does not stop only here. Off shore European territories and dependencies are also in the tax evading list. States like Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey, Guernsey are operating as tax havens and these are only the British territories.

If you look at the world map of tax haven nations, half of them are located in Europe or are under a European country's administration. Never mind those who have close links with a European country due to their colonial links. Despite Europe being the second smallest continent in the world, it is to be blamed for more than half of the tax havens on it!

So personally I find it a bit rich and daft, when our European partners pointed the finger at the Greeks for being tax evaders. Tax evasion is a European disease and the worse offenders are the citizens of the richer nations, not those of the poorer. So as tax evasion is a European problem it should be dealt, like every other problem in our continent on a European level and with a single coordinated response.

Until now our leaders had the terrible habit of  going after the working class to collect taxes from, instead of going after the rich. This was part of the economic model and system that Europe and America were following, a liberal agenda that was encouraging rich people to tax evade.

According to them, if you place high taxes on the rich, they are going to leave the country and move somewhere else. Or as they claim, taxing the rich would hinder any investment in the country, as it would put off rich multinational companies and investors.

In result the working class and the small local companies had to carry most of the burden of taxation and that made it difficult for any small/medium company to flourish. And so any of us the "average Joes" can not enjoy a more comfortable life or start our own business, unless we tax evade too.

It seems that the very purpose of existence of the tax haven states is to function as such. Small states that have limited natural resources and are dependent to their former colonies or larger neighboring countries, do not have much of a choice if they want to thrive on their own. They can either be tax havens or be absorbed into a larger neighboring state. Also the economic system of the Western countries needs and feeds such havens, in order to have a place to stash their money when in times of crisis.

But that results in a huge loss in tax revenue across Europe. An estimated 1 € trillion is the potential tax revenue lost annually to tax evasion or avoidance in the EU only. Of that, 514 € billion was the EU's total budget deficit in 2012 alone. It is clear that in times of crisis, that is a lot of money. And that the average tax payer will somehow be forced to cover this huge deficit, in order to put his country's and Europe's finances back in order.

Arguably that is not at all fair. We need to find solutions to this problem and either make tax evasion to off shore companies less attractive, or we need to clamp down on the practice altogether drastically. One solution would be to put pressure or even eventually place sanctions on states that are not willing to cooperate with us and encourage this practice. We place sanctions in every other state that disagrees with us for political reasons, so why can't we proceed with something like that?

Well the main problem is that many EU states are themselves tax havens, so we need to first start working from the inside before we tell others how to sort their own finances. And that can be very difficult while some very rich and powerful countries like Britain are tax havens, or some others like Ireland are totally dependent on foreign investment in order to keep their economy going.

If they agree to give up their tax haven status, then the rest of Europe must agree to somehow compensate them for their loss of revenue. In Ireland's case, that it really needs the investments coming from American multinationals, any change on their taxation system will be disastrous. When the American multinationals leave Ireland if any Irish government agrees to harmonize their taxation system with the rest of Europe, then European multinationals must fill the gap and establish branches in the country to keep their economy going.

Otherwise the Irish economy will collapse and will be in need of constant financial support from its partners, but that will leave it totally dependent on them. If there will ever be a decisive solution to the tax evasion issue, it must be collective and with the absolute cooperation of all EU states. When we sort our own finances, then we can ask other states to follow our lead or abide with our rules if they want to do business with us.

Another solution would be to make the whole of EU a tax haven and allow big multinationals to be established across Europe. Lower the tax rate in all EU states and allow companies to flourish. But if such thing ever happens it must also apply to SMEs and every single citizen, not just the large multinationals or big companies. It must be fair to all and not create an unfair environment that will favor the rich again.

We could all pay less taxes and rely on private companies, not the state to provide us with services, social protection and security. That will lead to massive privatizations and I am not sure that countries like Sweden, that has formed a very successful model based on high taxes but very effective public services, will be willing to redesign its model from scraps.

Also what will happen if all do what Switzerland does, can we all allow bank secrecy across the EU? Perhaps nobody should pay any taxes to the state and so it won't be needed anymore. We should let the corporate companies to provide us with health and social security, roads, water, schools and education, public services.

I do not think that any of us is ready to go through with this plan and I do not believe that our leaders are willing to stop receiving any taxes from their citizens. Besides banking secrecy and corporate malpractice have led us to this crisis, so giving more power to the banks and allowing them to be dominant in our continent should not be part of the solution. If anything else, we need to create regulations that will keep the banking sector and the multinationals answerable to some state authority, to avoid another future mess.

Once we sort our own economy we could put pressure on others to follow suit. Since we are the largest market on the planet, multinationals can not afford to avoid us forever. And if we really put our effort in becoming one of the world's main economic powerhouses, then with a united voice we could influence other countries to join us in our battle in limiting tax revenue loss.

We should also crack down on tax evasion of any kind in our countries, upgrading our taxation system by reducing the red-tape and bureaucracy and of course eliminating the black market. The black market is widespread in countries like Greece and Italy, with cheap goods or copies arriving mainly from China , finding their way into our markets.

Tax, salary and retail prices harmonization across the EU will end the practice of importing cheaper goods from poorer member states, into the markets of the rich ones. But that will take even longer to achieve and will need a lot of compromises, mainly from the richer nations. They will have to allow the poorer nations to catch up with them in economic and social terms.

I am curious to see how our leaders plan to limit tax evasion, but I am glad to see that they recognize that this practice is a part of the problem. Will they decide to radically reform our economic system and make it fairer?

Well the European Commission and EU leaders have promised to create one of the toughest tax transparency regimes in the world by passing a new Savings Tax Law by the end of the year.You may read more about their plans here. So things are eventually moving towards a right direction and that is good news for all of us.

Do EU and eurozone expansions bring hope and stability for the block?

Today Croatia becomes the 28th state of the EU and we are only a few months before Latvia officially adopts the euro. It seems that despite the economic crisis that brought much doubt about the block's credibility, there are plenty of countries that still want to join.

The enlargement efforts of EU to include the Western Balkans region also got a new boost, with the EU Council agreeing this week to start accessions talks with Serbia.

Despite the crisis, the EU remains an attractive block and a considerable player in our continent and the world. And it is indeed heartening to see that the enlargement efforts have not stopped during the crisis, but Europe continues to strive towards its unification.

It is important to stay on track and continue with our efforts, but it is also crucial to have a health check every now and again and ponder on where we stand as a continent. Despite all the cheering for Croatia and Latvia, I can not ignore the fact that some other European countries chose to reject or be skeptical about EU membership.

We have the case of Iceland that since applying for membership in 2009 following its economic meltdown, its new government chose to suspend its application just two weeks ago. This echoes the case of Norway, another Nordic nation and its two failed attempts to join the block.

Switzerland and Norway, together with Iceland are the only Western European states that continue to reject EU membership. Any future European federation won't be fulfilled without these countries being part of it.

EU rejection does not always come from outside the block, but from inside as well. The crisis has given the opportunity to many euro-skeptic groups to become more vocal, organized and gain influence in many EU countries. Notably in the UK, who although is a member of the EEC/EU since 1973, it is now considering to have a referendum and leave the Union altogether.

All the above are not things to be cheerful of. Europe needs to have the UK as a committed member and it is very important to have access to the North Pole through Norway and Iceland, a key region of the future. The Western Balkans are also important of course and I am not trying to diminish the success of the block in this region.

But it is obvious that the EU is still mainly an economic project and practices politics that are attached to the financial interests of each European country. It should develop to a political, cultural and even a military union if it wants to succeed and become a key player in the world.

Iceland although in trouble financially, it has very good state infrastructures and it would benefit very little from an EU membership in this sphere. Croatia, Serbia and the other Eastern European countries though need the EU to receive not just financial help, but also assistance to improve their infrastructure.

In other words it was financial reasons that pushed Iceland towards the EU, despite the country's traditional skepticism. Now that they have somewhat recovered from the crisis, they have decided to backtrack to their previous stance towards European integration.

This may be due to the overall Nordic mentality of euro-skepticism and reluctance to commit to an international organization, in fear of losing their independence, resources or wealth. But it may well be due to other reasons too.

During the first months since the Irish EU/IMF bail-out, there have been numerous Irish TV programs featuring debates and information about the crisis that had swept the country. In some of these debates, there have been guest speakers from other crisis stricken nations like Greece or Iceland.

In one RTE program a speaker from Iceland stated clearly, that his country will keep an eye on how the EU is treating the smaller nations during the crisis, in order to decide on their EU membership bid. Judging on how the richer and powerful nations have treated their poorer partners in the recent years, with all the spat between them and constant arguments, is it any wonder that the Icelandic public opinion turned sour on EU membership?

I mean who would want to join a club that its members treat each other with such disrespect? It seems that only nations in dire need of an economic and structural boost would do so. As it happens, these are the states of the Balkans or Eastern Europe and that to me is a clear failure of the European way of thinking and political reality.

The richer nations of our continent still avoid EU membership, because simply they would gain nothing out of it. All that they want to gain from the European project, they already receive with their EEA/EFTA membership. A full EU membership would cost them more.

And that is the reason why the UK wants out too. Because according to them their membership is becoming more expensive than they originally thought, or are happy to contribute into. Like the Swiss or the Norwegians they are pleased to receive the benefits from the Single Market, but they do not want to pay the expensive bill.

That is simply disappointing. Firstly because it shows that the true motives of EU membership are financial, then political and because the real interests of the people, together with democracy itself are compromised for the financial interests of the elites in each country.

The European project must have a vision together with political, cultural and social dimensions added to it. By simply being an economic pet project of our elites, it is doomed to be always incomplete and indifferent to the citizens of Europe.

What good is to me if I can travel, shop, work or study in every European country if I do not have the same rights or living standards in each one of them. Why should I be happy about the cap of roaming charges across the EU, while there is great inequality on salary, pensions, work conditions, education and development opportunities among the Union's member states? 

The Single Market monopolizes the bulk or EU regulations and debates, while Europe must start investing funds, time and effort in many other spheres like its military, foreign policy, education and coordinating its social policies.

And of course we should all stop seeing the EU as an economic block, rather a political, social and cultural project too that we all contribute equally and benefit from. Either rich or poor, all European nations must become members and work together for the development and reformation of our continent collectively.

The notion that one state is rich and does not need to become a member is rubbish. Even the rich nations need to have access to the Single Market and the markets of the poorer nations. We all benefit from it and we all must have a say in formatting it.

At last I would love to see all European nations sit around the same parliament seats and debate, contribute and forming a better continent for tomorrow. An equal partnership and real solidarity among our continent's states, not the opportunistic, technocratic and elitist sort that we have at the moment.

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.