The issue with F.Y.R.O.M.

One of the most important current E.U. agendas is the further expansion of the Union and the inclusion of all Western Balkans. There are many issues that must be resolved, for some of the countries to be eligible to join.

Many of them have issues with corruption, financial, social and judicial problems. One of them has an additional name dispute with an existing E.U. member state, Greece.

Not that the only obstacle for full EU membership that FYROM is facing is the naming dispute. Corruption, a fragmented multi-ethnic society, equality issues between the Albanian and the Slavic communities, freedom of speech are also serious issues.

But focusing on the country's spat with Greece, is the name dispute just "silly," as many of our fellow European nationals think? They are obviously influenced by their national media, that do not give an accurate description of the problem, or they simply do not understand it and are oversimplifying it. Perhaps it masks a deeper problem that is far more complicated for an average European citizen, with limited understanding of the region's history to understand.

Ancient Macedonia has undoubtedly Greek heritage and lineage.All archaeological findings and historical facts point out to this fact. And if in any doubt you may like to listen to a testimony from a non Greek here.

If ancient Macedonians were of different stock then how come we have after the expansion of the empire of Alexander the Great, the creation of the "Hellenistic" period in art, history and culture of Europe and not the "Macedonian"? The Greek language was spread from the Balkans to India, while there is absolutely no evidence that the ancient inhabitants of this land spoke the same language with the citizens of FYROM.

The Romans had also conquered Greece and spread its culture to the rest of Europe, but they also promoted their own language which was Latin. And so we have the different languages that originated from it, in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Romania. Why didn't ancient Macedonians promote their own language, rather prefered to make the Attic dialect of ancient Greek the lingua franca of the times? 

We have to understand that when we are talking about ancient Greece, we are not talking about one state or nation, not even one homogenous ethnic group. Ancient Greece was fragmented in kingdoms, city states, monarchies and tyrannies of the different Greek tribes, just like the different Celtic tribes and organized in different political systems.

Perhaps ancient Greeks were as different to each other as today are the Norwegians to the Swedish. They spoke different dialects of the same language and as they were a nationalist and chauvinist society, their favorite debate was who was a barbarian and who could be called a true Greek. To be called a barbarian was the worse insult you could give to another person or nation.

So welcome to the world of ancient Greek politics. When the Athenians, who were enemies of the kingdom of Macedon called them barbarians, they were actually insulting them. I guess their debates of who could be called a Greek, were not much different from our debates today on who is European, where Europe ends and if Turkey, Georgia and Ukraine can be called European and join the EU.

The Greek identity was not solidified back then, just like the very European identity is under a lot of debate now. And as it expanded and came in contact with other ethnic groups, it certainly kept absorbing them together with their culture, creating an ever shifting Greek ethnic identity.

Due to its long history Macedonia's population changed dramatically over the centuries. In fact Macedonians seized to exist as an autonomous ethnic group after the expansion of the Roman empire. Never again Macedonia will be independent until the liberation of the region from the Turks. Since its incorporation in the Roman empire Macedonia's borders will change constantly, depending its rulers' administration efforts to manage their empire's regions.

Macedonia was since the Byzantine and Ottoman empires constantly a multinational society. Its population was consisted of Greeks, Romans, Turks, Armenians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Jews, other Europeans and middle Eastern people.They lived side by side for centuries and by geographical terms, they can all be called "Macedonians." Why should one nation today be allowed to monopolize its name?

With the Balkan wars and the collapse of the Ottoman empire, one question remained: how to partition the region of Macedonia, a region so rich in natural resources and with such geopolitical and strategic location. Many wanted it and tried to promote their interests in it. For the Greeks apart of any economical or political motives, there was also the historical aspect of it.

Thessaloniki's Jews did not want the region to fall under either Bulgarian or Greek rule. They held under the Ottoman rule most economic control of the region and in fact many ultra orthodox Jews did not even want the creation of Israel, as they considered Macedonia as their promised land.(1)

The big powers of Europe were also divided, but most of them did not want Macedonia to come under either Greek or Bulgarian control, as they have established good trade relations with the Ottomans and the Jews, plus they wanted to manage the region's resources. (1)

Austria even thought to campaign towards the south to conquer Macedonia for itself, but they were too late. The Greek army liberated the region before them. The Ottomans of course did not want to lose Macedonia either, as it was a very important stronghold of their empire in Europe. (1)

After the liberation by the Greeks, the newly created state came face to face with the multi-ethnic population of Macedonia. Population exchanges happened between Turkey and Greece, but also Greece and Bulgaria, in order to create a more homogenous state, something that all countries wanted. Bulgaria and Greece especially got involved in a nasty and bitter struggle to gain influence over Macedonia.(1)

Throughout the Ottoman years, the Greeks and the Bulgarians were competitive against each other to gain influence and lands in Macedonia. Its population in many regions was bilingual from all these struggles. (1)

Before the collapse of the Ottoman empire, we have the beginnings of the creation of an effort to keep Macedonia either Turkish or have it as an independent state, because it suited the interests of many. Therefore various Jewish, Turkish and communist organizations were dedicated in the creation of a pan-Macedonian consciousness, in order to keep the region independent. (1)

Many preferred to see it as an independent nation rather to fall into the hands of a newly emerged state like Bulgaria and Greece, that they argued that they could not handle the potential of the region on their own. And here is where the problem starts. (1)

There was a Slavic or Bulgarian speaking population in the region of Greece, plus also a significant Jewish population. The second community was decimated by the Nazis in WW2, while the first community after the end of the war and when Greece fell into a bloody civil war, chose to side with the communists and co-operated with Tito. Tito wanted the region to join the rest of the communist Balkan states on the side of USSR, and he had views on Macedonia.

So he assisted the Greek communists and the Slavic speakers of the region, in order to break Greece and create a new Korea in Europe. A northern Greek communist state in Macedonia and Thrace, and a nationalistic pro-Western southern Greek state.

After the war the Greek Communists and the Slavic speakers of Greece who sided with them, were expelled from the country with the blessings of the West and settled in what is today FYROM, most eastern Europe and ex-USSR states. Their descendants in FYROM demand to be allowed back into Greece and regain the properties of their ancestors that have been confiscated after the war. So they use the issue of the naming dispute to put pressure on Greece, to accept their demands.

But most of the people of FYROM are of Slavic descent and migrated to the region of Macedonia 1000 years after the years of Alexander, so they can not have any claim on the history and heritage of ancient Macedonia. Their language is a Bulgarian dialect.

They have settled in the region for centuries, so for geographical reasons they can call themselves Macedonians, but there are not a separate and distinctive ethnicity under that name. Ancient Macedonians are vanished and gone. Their heritage and legacy remain with Greece, as they were a Greek kingdom.

Just like the legacy of the ancient Greeks of south Italy or "Magna Grecia" belongs to Greece too, even though by modern geopolitical terms they are Italians. Sicily in fact is also a Greek originated name as it was called "Sikelia" by the Greeks. The name of a region can never be an obstacle. The narrow minds of its inhabitants though, surely can.

The name Sikelia (Sicily) is still used by Italians but they do not have any claim of the Greek heritage of the region, or denounce it just like the FYROM people do, in order to present it as or create their own. They embrace it and proudly acknowledge it! Something that not only the people of FYROM but of the Balkans in general, still drenched with blind nationalism, are not mature enough to do.

Today Macedonia has two or more ethnic groups living in its land, the Greek Macedonians, the Slav Macedonians with Albanian and Roma minorities also present. The Greeks actually call the inhabitants of FYROM, "Slavomacedonians". That translates to Macedonians of Slavic descent. Another proof that the issue is not about the name, rather  about land, heritage, history and the "truth."

We could share the name, provided they drop their claims over Greek national history and heritage plus the mud throwing against Greece about non existent oppressed minorities in its territory. A name that could include the term "Macedonia," could be accepted by the Greeks if they are reassured. Slavonic Republic of Macedonia, or Macedonia of Vardarska could be successful candidate names. But can they be trusted?

Macedonia is and should remain a region of Europe. With two separate ethnic groups separated in two different states. The Greek Macedonians and the "Vardarska" Macedonians. Vardarska was the name of the region of FYROM before the propaganda of Tito, who changed its name and who's legacy in fact is the "Macedonian naming dispute." 


Name disputes are not anything new. France blocked the UK's entry in EEC back in the '70s, under the name of Great Britain, because they thought it implied territorial claims over the French territory of Bretagne (or Brittany)! So that is why the UK entered EEC as United Kingdom!

FYROM belongs in the EU and all European institutions. It is in Greece's interests to have stable and prosperous nations as neighbors, but we should not have to sacrifice our national heritage to see this plan through. Pity, because the people of FYROM are victims of the megalomania of it's current leadership.

I am a Greek Macedonian from Thessaloniki, and a European. There is no reason for Greeks and SlavoMacedonians to be hostile to each other. It is in both our interests a common understanding and solution to the problem. It is also in our interests to have closer cooperation and integration in the region, within the EU framework.

(1) Extracts from Mark Mazower's book: "Salonica, City of Ghosts."

Gay Marriages and Homophobia in Europe.

"Homophobia is damaging people’s health and careers across Europe and the problem may be worse than reported because victims are scared to draw attention to themselves for fear of a backlash, an EU study said. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights said police in most countries were incapable of dealing with homophobic crime – ranging from verbal abuse to deadly attacks – and said many governments and schools failed to take it seriously enough."

From the Irish Times.

Isn't it sad that in the year 2010, Europe is still divided by a "Rainbow Curtain". More than 40 years since the beginning of the Gay Rights Movement in America and its spread throughout the western or westernized countries, Europe is still divided. The west- northern states in their majority recognize same sex marriages or civil partnerships, but the eastern -southern states do not and have no plans in doing so anytime soon.

It is also intriguing that 40 years before WW2 the first organization promoting education about homosexuality and the abolition of laws against homosexuality was founded in Germany, before the Nazis' rise to power ended all efforts. We could say then that if the Nazis stopped it, then every government that acts in a similar way behaves like them.

Homosexuality existed always in human societies. From the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, the Celts, Indians, American Indians, every society in the ancient world was tolerant of it. In ancient Greece and Rome sexual preferences and partners were as natural, tolerated and accepted as today is the music that you listen to.

In fact in ancient Greece older men usually were the mentors, teachers and often lovers of younger men. They were teaching them how to fight, use the sword and even how to make love to a woman while they were in a homosexual relation.

In ancient American Indian tribes, homosexual men were honored and respected people. They did not go to battle like the rest of the men, rather stayed back and became teachers or minders of the children. They were often taking roles of the shaman and other respected figures.

Homosexuality also exists in many animal species like dolphins, geese, lions, monkeys, apes, herbivore mammals, parrots, penguins, snakes, beetles and octopuses. Animals from different species and families are practicing homosexual sex, each for different purposes.

From just fun in dolphins, to strengthen social ties in our closest relatives the bonombo chimpanzees. Male to male couples of geese are often proved to be more successful in raising young. Because both are stronger than females, thus having an advantage. One of them mates with a female and they drive it off its nest so they can raise the young on their own.

Female lionesses often practice same sex games, in order to strengthen their ties before a hunt. Scientists have found a species of octopus on the bottom of the oceans that when its population explodes, a percentage of its male populations "turns" gay and their population is reduced again. In other words nature controls some species populations' by homosexuality.

Homosexuality  is in fact a natural practice and occurs in about 10% of the human population of all races, every ethnicity, religion, sex and age. Now why we ended up loathing and humiliating our homosexual minorities comes down to religion and it's role in controlling human sexuality and freedom of expression.

Sexuality, passion, creativity, love, emotions, free thinking are all interconnected. If you want to control one, you will have to control all others. And all three main religious movements (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) did just that. After  centuries of suppression of human sexuality it became the norm to the masses of people that homosexuality is something evil, devil derived, ridiculous and laughable, a degradation from how God wanted us to be.

I will have to laugh on this after the recent scandals of child abuse in the Catholic church. They preach against consensual sex between two adult males or females, while they were raping innocent children throughout Europe and America for decades or even centuries. Hypocrites!

So we ended up having homophobia rooted deep in our mentality and only recently attitudes started to change again. In few European countries they have already given full rights to homosexual couples, while in others are taking steps towards it.

There is also a huge misunderstanding on the issue of gay marriage. Gay couples do not just want to get married in a church like the straight ones. Rather they are seeking same legal status for their union, in all aspects of it apart from sex. Buying a house together, inheritance, social benefits etc. Legitimizing by law their union and achieving equal status for it as any couple, gay or straight should. And I really do not understand the Church's objection to this.

Why it supports monogamous relationships for all people while they object to it for gay people? One would thought that promoting monogamous lifestyle and sex life in gay people would be what they wanted. Since they can not eradicate homosexuality as it is a natural occurrence, then why not try to bring it to the same level as heterosexuality?

Who would want gay people to have casual sex only and never be able to form open, loving, caring and long term partnerships, that is more natural and healthy than hiding and practicing sex in the shadows? In that way, they are pushing the gay minority to have an unhealthy lifestyle that harms them, with the spread of STI's and AIDS.

The role of the media is also dubious. They are promoting the gay lifestyle in TV series, soap operas and reality television, but they seem to promote only one type of homosexuals. Are there really any cliche types of gay people? We have abolished apparently ghettos in our neighborhoods, but we have implanted them in our heads.

We are giving "freedom" to homosexuals to be open and "come out", but we immediately promote a stereotyped lifestyle that all of young gay individuals should follow. Ghetto is not just an area that you live in, it is also a state of mind. I think the society is succeeding in creating an image of gays that is camp, funny, feminine and interested in clothes and fashion. It forgets though to mention that some of the greatest artists, painters, ballet dancers, writers, actors, musicians, thinkers and even politicians and military men in human history were homosexuals or bisexuals.

Why would anyone object that two people that love each other, can form partnerships that have legal protection for the two partners in case of death or separation? Securing and protecting not just the interests of each individual in the partnership from one another, but in the case of death, from the family of the deceased partner.

The religious conservatives hold this notion that sex is only acceptable for procrastination purposes, despite observing even in Nature and other animal species that sex is not used just for this. And even if it did, why would we like to bring ourselves to the same level of the other animals? We claim that we are the most advanced species on the planet and we take pride of it. But they insist when it comes to sex, to take example of the allegedly laws of Nature and have sexual relations only when we want to have kids.

Humans are the most complex species on this planet, yet we chose to ignore their mental or emotional needs that are more complicated than any other animal. And from the spiritual angle of this, if two souls are in love with each other, why should the body be the obstacle to their union?

We insist in projecting young gay people, while in the most difficult period of their lives, to this damaging, humiliating experience of having to endure bullying, discrimination and rejection even by their own family. We don't realize that those practices only create damaged and dysfunctional people in our societies, afraid to be what they want to be and behave in a natural to them way.

There is also the issue of gay couples adopting children. For the moment I would not support such move by gay people who do not already have children of their own. Not that I do not have faith that gay people can raise a child as well as straight people. But our society is not ready to accept gay marriages, so I have concerns about the possibility of bulling that the adopted child might face at school, for having two same sex parents.

I would not exclude it though later, after our societies are fully ready to accept this and gay marriages have become as normal as the heterosexual ones. But for the cases when one partner has already kids by a previous heterosexual relationship, is another thing. Their other half should be able to adopt the children and give them protection and financial security if all parties agree. It is not unusual for people to have both homosexual and heterosexual relationships throughout their lives and have children with their straight partners.

It is time to rethink the family structures and norms that we have set for our societies. Since our sexuality is not as black and white as we think or are told it is and since our societies are changing fast, what good is to cling in old and failed practices that only perpetuate human misery and sadness?

Why it is important to keep voting in the European Parliament elections!

Democracy in the western world and Europe, is one of our fundamental assets, the spine cord of our civilization and the pride of our culture. Yet democracy, is a relevant idea if it lacks it’s main ingredient: the public. Any democratic system that it’s people are indifferent, ignorant or hostile to it’s institutions and functions, is in danger of becoming nothing more than a theater without the audience and the actors. An empty and meaningless institution.

Democracy can exist in a national, and an international level. As long as the people who are affected by the decisions of the Parliament, the heart of every democracy in the world are getting involved, vote, debate and being informed for the decisions taken by it, democracy exists and prevails. Either in one nation state, or in an international organization that is formed by many states like the EU, democracy can be present once it’s laws are being respected and implemented.

The duties of each one of us who is a citizen of a democratic country or a group of states, are most importantly to vote, care, be aware and participate in the functions and decision making of the democratic
system we belong. Our actions are necessary for the establishment of a functioning democracy.

Turn your back to it, or have no interest in participating and you do not just lose your voice, your influence and your chance to express your satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Technically you lose your right to democracy.

It works for you and with you, but without you, not only it loses it’s power, but you also lose every right to complain about everything you dislike in the country you live in. Or the group of countries who form the democratic institution your country belongs.

By voting in the European elections, you do not undermine your country’s sovereign status but you are increasing its influence and voice in the EU. Something that is so important for every country in
it, since by sending the most suitable MEPs to represent your country, you are securing the best interests of your nation and Europe’s in general.

Most "euro-skeptics" will argue that by giving power to the EP, you are giving away your country's sovereignty. But just think about this: are we really sovereign in a globalized world and how independent do you think you are at a national level? Do other regions of this world really have 100% say over their countries or their continent? But unlike the others, we have a chance to unite our voices, coordinate our actions and protect our collective interests better than them.

The role of EU is not to threaten the sovereignty of any member state as many believe. The argument of losing your national identity and becoming “European” if you vote for the European elections it simply
silly. The EU is not one nation or country, rather a union of states that want to work together, co-operate and share knowledge, resources, and policies towards a common good. “European” is something that we already are, since we inhabit this continent and participation in European affairs is something that we all should take seriously since whatever happens to Europe, affects us all directly.

To me the only way that Europe could become fairer and a better place to be, would be the formation of a partially federal government. To offer an alternative to our national often corrupt governments, paralyzed by the interests and monopolies of the ruling elites that were established after WW2. Lets give them competition and shake up the European established political elite.

Europe should be governed in three levels: The local, national and the European one. And for all matters European, we should give full power to the EP. We should not allow our national governments to mix or impose national politics onto European ones. Our countries and economies are already widely intertwined, so trying to solve European issues applying national solutions does not work anymore. Keep our national governments for all issues national.

Indifference, hostility, radicalism, nationalism, or simply lack of interest, can have disastrous consequences. Democracy does not work well with those elements. Any decision taken under such circumstances can be the wrong one and when it is an important one, the results can be negatively affecting the whole of  Europe for decades to come.

So the importance of a vote should be clear to everyone. It is not something imposed to us, it is our right and we should be proud and protective of it. We fought for it, we deserve it. Use it and use it wisely. In the next European Elections make sure you are present and give your message to your Government and all our European leaders.

What kind of Europe do you want? Vote to say that you care, that you are bothered. Vote to shape Europe, and influence it. No one will ignore you if the turn out is large. The more people turn out to vote, the more serious the elections are, the more seriously your politicians will take you.

If the turn out is small, do not be surprised if you are ignored again. Be responsible and use your rights. Vote! Let's make EU democratic and fully functioning.

Whaling and CFP should not be an issue for Iceland's EU accession!

I am reading with a great interest the progress of Iceland's application for EU membership. Iceland might be a tiny nation, but has a great strategic importance. Located near the North Pole, can give EU and Europe access to the region until and if Norway ever wants to join.

It holds as well a good fisheries stock and a good expertise in finding alternative energy. Their infrastructure is very interesting and many other European states can learn a lot by them.

The fisheries is not the only issue that is a potential obstacle for Iceland's EU membership. The debate on the whaling practices of the small country also raise a case for concern.

It is no lie that EU's CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) is outdated, just like CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) and in need of reforms. Some good policies exists in it, but I disagree with many others. The quotas that are set in the policy may not be always the right ones, but quotas are necessary. We need to control our stocks and managing them better. Because they are not going to last forever if we keep exploiting them like we do.

Nevertheless I do not agree with the way we handle our fisheries. Here in Ireland and in Greece, small fishermen complain and blame the EU for destroying their fisheries. In fact EU policies destroyed the small and medium sized fishing industries, as well as many local fishing communities almost completely.

 Large fleets from Spain come to Ireland to fish, and from Italy to Greece to do the same. Small fishermen have lost their jobs and livelihoods to big fleets from large fishing companies. Again it is the people that suffer the consequences, but that does not mean that Ireland or Greece as states have lost from the deals. When each country enters the EU, it negotiates what will give and what it will take from the rest of the Union's members.

From my knowledge, when Ireland entered the EEC, it chose to get support for it's farming industry and money for infrastructure in other areas, but it gave up completely its fisheries. In a way it exchanged them for better farming and development in the areas it was most interested in. So if the Irish want to blame somebody, then they should blame their then government who had no real interest in safeguarding their fisheries and the welfare of their fishermen, not the EU.

But Iceland's position is totally different. One of it's main industries are the fisheries so I doubt if they will abandon them as easily. Nevertheless I disagree with Europe's mentality on this issue overall. Why take all the fisheries from a nation and it's people, do not allow them to exploit them themselves according to quota you give them, so each state can then chose who and how much can catch.

Once a nation depletes it's quota, it can go and exploit another nation's that has not yet done so, and thus provide fish to the whole of the market. I watched a documentary recently about how smaller pacific nations exploit their fisheries, only catching what they need and want. I think it is time for Europe to do the same. Encourage smaller fishermen to work and provide for their families and local communities, following the national and European quota.

Fish are not just commodities to me. They are living organisms that belong to no one else but themselves and to all creatures that depend on them for their food. I disagree with the industrialization of the fisheries as it kills off many species and threatens them with extinction. EU should protect them so the quotas are needed after relative researches are done, to establish which species need protection. De-industrialization of the fish stocks and a new more eco and animal friendly fishing practices in Europe, is the way forward I am afraid.

The CFP should and from what I hear is meant to be reformed during the next few years. I will be certainly be watching the developments and Iceland's or Norway's reaction to them. 

Iceland should protect its fisheries, but it could allow other countries to fish in a percentage of their waters. Smaller fishermen and small fishing industries will have the exclusive rights to fish and provide the national and  European markets in a percentage of Iceland's fishing grounds, while other regions will be international. I hope that this will solve any issues on fisheries.

The whaling issue I think it is even simpler. In USA and Canada, they allow the native tribes to catch a quota of whales each year, even though both USA and Canada have banned whaling. They have allowed their native American population of the north to continue catching a small number of whales, for cultural and ethnic heritage reasons.

Though I love whales and I am sad to see them killed, I realize that there is no difference between a whale and a pig, an animal also intelligent that we kill it for meat. Though pigs are farmed and whales can not be, we could still after careful research point out which species have recovered and how many deaths can they support each year by humans. And so allow the Icelanders and a small number of Norwegians, the native populations of northern Europe, to continue catching a limited number of whales for the same reasons that the Innuit people do in north America.

Whaling is a part of the Icelandic heritage and I respect it totally, but I also want to preserve the whales. If the Icelanders agree to lower their quota each year on the number of whales caught and use their meat only for their internal market consumption and not for exporting, then I see no reason for whaling being an obstacle to Iceland's EU accession. 

They could agree on a quota given to them by a new EU whaling body that should be set up,especially for this reason. To monitor how many whales are caught by Iceland or Norway, in what way and how their meat is being used. Or perhaps the Fisheries Commissioner should have this responsibility, instead of creating a new position and it would be best if he/she was coming from a Nordic country.

Why should we always lift barriers when it comes to finding solutions in a problem in Europe? There is always a way around things, if we truly want to work on European integration. Imagine if Europe wanted to strike a special deal on farming with India that would benefit the continent, but the Indians found very upsetting that in Europe we eat cows, their holy animal.

So suddenly the Indians placed a demand out of us to stop eating cows, thus destroying a whole industry in Europe that focuses on turning cows into burgers! Should we comply? We have lost Norway in the past from becoming a very valuable EU member stated, because of the stubbornness of France's De Gaul. We are losing Turkey now with the reluctance of a few members in accepting the country in the club. Should we lose Iceland and the very important door to the North Pole, because of rejection of the Nordic diet?

Energy Issues of Europe.

Could the European nations find new ways to explore alternative sources of energy? Becoming in that way energy efficient,independent from oil or gas exporting nations and of course "greener".

So far they are encouraged by EU or their own governments to do so, on a national level mostly.

There are very few inter-national efforts and those apply mainly in oil or gas imports. Can we start building alternative energy production units from renewable or "green" resources collectively?

Europe has such a variety of climates and diverse natural habitats. We have strong streams and winds at the north and western part of our continent, hot sun and wind in the south. We could start exploiting solar, wind and sea current energy in the Mediterranean  EU states, both existing and future.  While exploit wind and sea currents in the North Western states.

Why could we not work together, a number of states sharing the expenses of exploration and building new kind of power-plants. Why spend money engaging in wars, to keep the flow of oil and gas from third party countries? Or putting so much effort in political involvement in countries that the oil or gas pass through to reach Europe.



Of course the companies that have invested so much in these activities and have huge interests in these regions, won't approve such thing. And it is clear that renewable energy probably cover all Europe's needs in energy. But we definitely can replace a percentage and reduce not only our CO2 emissions, but a costly trade with producer countries too.

A number of EU nations could co-operate, co-finance or co-build a source of alternative energy provider together, belonging to all of them and perhaps to the whole of Europe. Sharing expertise, knowledge and resources can lead to greater results.

The EU could create a common fund for exploration and development in all countries, accessed by all countries. We have CAP and CFP, how about a CEP (Common Energy Policy)? We shall all profit, benefit from and share this power generated and shall contribute to become independent and energy efficient. One of the purposes of EU is to make European nations cooperate and work together,so we can achieve our goals. Why not in energy issues as well?

As long as we are relying on others too much for our energy we will always be at their mercy. Countries like Nigeria, Iraq, the Middle East will always suffer and be undeveloped so the rest of the World can find cheap oil. Transit states like Ukraine and the Caucasus will also always be unstable.


We could put an end to all this or we could limit its effects, by producing a part of our energy needs from natural resources and renewable energy. Stop investing in efforts to get more cheap oil from poor and devastated nations. In that way we create a new market and a new source of exploration and exploitation.

And with them new jobs and industries, new kind of growth changing Europe's economy drastically. The future of Europe can be greener. But the benefits of such changes, won't just help our pockets and the way we heat our homes. They could also help European integration, by encouraging the creation of many trans-European projects and economic activities.

Europe and Islam.

There are simmering tensions growing in Europe, between its native Christian population and the immigrant Muslim one. Traveling throughout Europe,  I came in contact with local people that expressed their thoughts and feelings about their country's Muslim minorities, that in many cases were not positive.

Coming from Greece, a country that associates Islam mainly with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire, it sounded natural. The opinions of course I was getting in their majority were coming mostly from a more populist aspect, that of the unemployed European who must compete with non natives for the same jobs and welfare.

The root of the issue is hardly religious. Europe is a secular continent and the times that  the Europeans and Muslims were fighting to prove the superiority of their God are gone. Different countries have different problems with the Muslim communities.

In Greece any rise of it's Muslim population is seen as a threat, since our largest neighbor is Turkey with 71 million population. Many even believe that the rise of immigration of people from Muslim countries into Greece, is a Turkish policy to weaken the Greek-Orthodox nature of our country, thus "Islamizing" Greece.

It happened when we were under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans were using forced Muslim immigration into the northern Greek region of Macedonia to weaken the Christian and Greek element, thus making their grip more firm onto the region. So any rise of the immigrant Muslim population, especially through Turkey, reminds to the Greeks those times.

Other countries of Europe have a different approach to the issue, depending their own past relations with Islamic countries. Some of them used to be colonial powers and their view of Islam differ. Racism of course is ever present in our societies and contributes to the problem. As varied is the European public opinion on immigration from Islamic countries, it is of course the relation of the Muslim immigrants for Europe and their adopted countries.

Muslim immigrants do not come from one single nation. They are from various countries, each with its own distinctive culture, heritage and religious beliefs. Some are closer to European values, some far from them. It is not fair to treat them all in the same way.

Most Europeans fear the loss of their ethnic identity, culture and way of life from the huge influx of non European immigrants. That results to the rejection of any different culture and the rise of nationalism. The fact that we are in war in the Middle East with some Muslim nations and the role of our media do not help. These two facts contribute to the rising fear of people of Islamic background.


Could this rising "threat" be manufactured? In the past we had the constant threat of the Communists and their regimes but now that they are gone, do we need another bogey-man to threaten us? I was never threatened by Iraq for example before 9/11, or the Afghan militia and didn't even heard of their will to destroy all Western nations.

All of a sudden Muslims in Europe are being targeted and  there is a mistrust created between the two communities. But if we do have problems with Islam, then why don't we curve immigration from Islamic countries and encourage immigration from Latin America that already have European culture and the Christian faith?

In the past Christians and Pagans were also arguing and fighting on European soil. The result was the creation of Christianity as we know it today, created by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Christian and Pagan beliefs were mixed to create a new version of Christianity with pagan elements, and the total control of the psyche and way of thinking of the Europeans begun. Will the new infighting lead to the unification of the two religions and the creation of a new one?

I have to admit though, us Europeans are a hypocrite breed. In Switzerland they allow Muslims in their land, but they do not want to see the minarets anymore. They do not mind a Turk serving them in a restaurant, but it is the minaret that reminds them of the spread of Islam in Switzerland. And in France and Britain, the two countries that boasted to the rest of us about their tolerance and multicultural societies, we now see their policies fail.

Personally I do not agree with the radical branches of Islam. It is unacceptable to give a citizenship and nationality to someone who rejects the secular laws and constitution of the state that she or he wants to live in. If you reject that, how can you demand acceptance from the others? If you adopt a new country, you adopt also the laws of it.


And if a cartoonist or Dutch politician have personal issues with Islam and create cartoons or films against it, why does this have to become a thorn between the two communities? We have freedom of speech in Europe. There is a secular Muslim country called Turkey, so I would like to see a European version of Islam. You can be European and you can be Muslim. The first does not forbid the second one.

But definitely you can not be European if your ideas about religion, homosexuality and women are set in a radical Islamic mentality. We in Europe fought hard to get rid of that Catholic and Orthodox Church control and manipulation of our lives. We have liberated our women, accepted homosexuals as equals, we are not going backwards!Either we are dealing with radical Catholicism, any other Christian sect, or radical Islam our attitude should be one; rejection.


We allow Muslims to come here but with no real interest in integrating them. We need fairer and reformed immigration policies and work on our relations with the Muslim world. In the past it was the Arabs that kept ancient Greek scripts and studied them, developing Maths and Algebra. Not the Europeans that were living in the Middle Ages and the control of the Christian Church.

Hopefully in the future we will have lots to learn from them again, and themselves from us.

Turkey in EU?

There is a lot of heated debate whenever we discuss Turkey's entry in the EU. What are the real issues behind Europe's reluctance in allowing Turkey to join?

Islam and it's large population are two of the obvious reasons, Greece and the Cyprus issue, but also the lack of freedom of the press, minority issues and the very powerful military elite of the country are also serious issues.

I myself consider Turkey a European nation. For centuries Greeks, Romans and other European nations roamed the region that today is called Turkey and Turkey's flirt with Europe started since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Culturally they are very close to us Greeks, since our ancestors belonged in the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, living side by side with what today is the Turkish population for centuries.

Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Europeans, since we are more and more an agnostic breed of people. Besides Turkey is a secular country and extremist Islamic movements are not as present as in other Muslim countries.

The real problem that Europeans have with Turkey's EU membership related to Islam, is the growing Muslim population in Europe. Many Europeans fear that Turkey's EU entry will bring more Muslim immigrants into their countries and will contribute to a radical change in Europe's demographics. So that in the future the European population will see its native Christian population shrink. And with it, the European values, culture and way of thinking.

But Turkey has already a lot of these European values and way of thinking. It is not fare to categorize every Muslim country the same, as they are all so different from each other. Besides, from what we have seen so far from the case of  states like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, immigration from these countries was not always as large or permanent as feared.

Many migrated for some years to western European states to work and make a lump-some, before returning back to their countries. Turkey's economy is doing rather well, better than many other EU Candidate Member States. Will the Turks flood Europe en mass once they join? Surely we will see more immigrants from Anatolia for a while, but if we curve immigration from other Muslim states, it can be balanced.

The full support of USA and the UK for Turkey's entry in EU is a thing that makes me a skeptic though. If the Americans and the British want it so badly, it can't be that good for the rest of Europe. They emphasize on what a great asset Turkey will be for our economies and the European Market. But does this translate as something necessarily good for the ordinary citizens?

The European Project should be something more than a huge Market and an economic experiment. Can Turkey offer solutions to European integration, do they have anything new to offer apart from what the Americans are advising us for?

Another issue of course the shift of power within EU. Why is Britain so keen for Turkey to join, while the Germans and the French are not? Turkey has a huge population and growing. If they join the voting power will shift. Especially if the Turks form with the Brits a similar Axis like that of the Franco-Germans, the EU could be transformed in what the British and Americans desire it to be.

Just a free trade market, not a political or a military union. I guess that is why Germany and France are not so keen and I do not believe that the Islam is the main issue, rather a secondary one. And I totally understand Germany's and France's fears and reluctance.

The only positive argument I find here, is the Turkish workforce that we may need. They are young, educated, numerous and hard working. I would much prefer to have immigrants from Turkey, a secular Muslim state, than Pakistan or Afghanistan in my country.

A major thorn in Turkey's EU accession is of course the attitude of the Turkish elite towards Greece, Cyprus and other Balkan states. Sadly there can be no favorable solution for them on the Cyprus issue, if they continue with their current policies. If they want accession, they will have to recognize the Republic and allow the Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides in reaching a compromise themselves. It should be the EU actually that must get more involved and play its role in reaching an agreement between the two sides.

As for Greece, Turkey's entry in the EU can be most favorable. Both nations suffer from having to invest heavily in their military budget in order to "protect" from each other. Two allied NATO nations that must protect from each other, how odd is that? But once Turkey joins, a war between them will be unthinkable, just as it is for Germany and France. Their economies will be so entwined and people will once again be able to move freely across the borders.

The Greeks will be able to resettle in cities like Istanbul and Izmir and the Turks in Crete and Thessaloniki, beginning a new era in the two countries' relationship. For sure they won't pose a threat to each other anymore, something that NATO membership has failed to achieve.

But can Europe "digest" Turkey? While they have a growing and promising economy, the western tip of the country is as European as the rest of the Balkans, but the eastern tip is way behind the rest of the country. In large parts it is controlled by separatist groups in the Kurdish region. It will take ages to bring the two sides of the country in the same level.

With the current economic crisis Europe has so many other things to work on, so Turkey is left out in the cold. Many predict that the Turks might get fed up and turn their back to Europe and that they will try to form alliances in the Middle East. Well I doubt if they are gonna turn to Iran, if they want to stay allies with America. They have neighbors like Armenia Georgia and Syria, nations not as friendly to them.

And the Middle East as a region is fragmented as well between pro and anti American sides. Could Turkey gain their trust and manage to unite them all? Especially since the Arabs do not have the best view of the Turks, and the Turks do not see themselves as Arabs. There is also the Kurdish problem. A challenging task indeed.

The "bridge between East and West" argument translates to me in "Oil Pipes from Caucasus" and their control. Turkey has a great strategic location. Europe needs oil. We are desperate to secure more sources of it and perhaps be less dependent in countries like Russia that have a hold on us, or any other less stable states from the Middle East and Africa. But can Turkey offer us that?

Wouldn't it be more preferable, instead of playing such dangerous geopolitical games in the region, to invest in a greener, energy efficient European economy?If we want to find a solution to our energy needs, perhaps meddling in the Middle East and its nations' affairs, is not the way forward. And so perhaps that is not the reason that Turkey should join the EU.

Of course major reforms must take place in the Turkish society before they can join. Their military elite must be weakened and overall they must become less authoritarian and more trusting towards their neighbors and Europe. The reforms that the EU has asked for must continue, especially those considering the freedom of press and certain minorities. They really need a minor social revolution, in order to change some issues that Europe is skeptical about, in their own time and gradually.

Overall I think this saga will continue for decades to come and loads of things can change during this time. Even Turkey. I hope they join one day, but not for the Markets or the oil that they have to offer Europe. If they join to be committed to Europe and the vision of an independent, prosperous, stable and federal continent, with common strategies and policies in the military and financial spheres, then they got my vote. Good Luck!

Future Governance of Europe. Nations, Feudals or a Federation?

Our leaders have gathered in Brussels to discuss, or rather argue on how to handle the current crisis. They rarely agree on anything and never take our opinion into consideration on whatever they agree in their summits in Brussels, even though it directly affects us.

The truth is that even though they want to keep the E.U. as a single Market and a place to trade, they do not really want to hand over the reigns of their countries into a new political union that is emerging in Europe.

The problem in our continent today is that we do not know what we want to do with it. We do not know how to manage our resources, how to cooperate with each other and how to work collectively.

And if we take into account the political reality in every nation, that is each dominated by a rich established elite, then it is clear to see that Europe is being ruled by elitism. Both on European and national level.

But that is not much different from the times that our nations were ruled by oligarchs or feudal lords. The difference is that today they are not land owners that govern us, rather rich bankers, businessmen, technocrats and marketers. It is not land they are offering for our hard work, but goods and services.

Our elites' interests are not necessarily our nations' interests. In a globalized world, the nation state is generally an outdated idea for those who thrive from the global market. And some of them have accumulated so much wealth, that are able to influence national governments, or even threaten their very existence. Yet through media manipulation, they are persuading us that what is generally good for them is the "good of the country." 

In the globalized economy, a free and independent state can not really exist unless it becomes another Cuba. Once you enter the Markets and become an open economy, there are certain rules you must abide with, in order to keep receiving credit. Thus your "independence" is relative.
 
Another factor that influences European politics, is that our continent today still bears the marks that WW2 has left behind. Our political, social and economic models were established on the aftermath of the war and our collective ideology and culture have also their roots there. Our political elites were established around the same time and reflect the ideology and politics of that era.

Global players influence and dominate now the policies that small nations follow, or large multinational organizations like the EU are promoting. That is what our political and economic capitalist system is dictating,a free open market and an overall neo-liberal agenda.

And to achieve that, this system has established in every country that wants to be part of it, a political and economic elite that is coming together, cooperating with the elites of other nations. The only thing though they agree on is that they have to preserve this system. Who is going to receive the Lion's share is what dominates European and global politics.

In Greece like in many other countries, we have two or three main political parties dominating and ruling the country. Political dynasties that have been established after the great post war shake up, that are somehow still relevant in our political and social psyche. But for how much longer?

The squabbles of many countries in Europe today, still reflect the overall attitude that one nation had for the other during or after the war. This political reality is very damaging for our future and for any effort to progress and reform.

The E.U. was created as an initiative of one group of European leaders and thinkers, during the '50s. They envisioned a Europe that would never see another war again. Today the European governments have long left this track and are focusing in making our continent a great market, but for the benefit of their "national" interests. They generally lack any collective vision for the continent. Each country represents simply it's own interests.

Many great motto exist like "United in diversity", "Europe for the people", to add prestige to the "European project." But you only have to wait until a crisis or an EU Summit to see the lack of unity or any consideration for the interests of the ordinary citizens of Europe.

The main power that rules the E.U. still lie with our national governments, plus the strong industrial and financial lobbies of our continent that they represent and serve. The Euro-Parliament has not the authority or jurisdiction to make the EU fully democratic and federal. These powers are being passed to the unelected by us EU Commission, or the EU Council that is all our governments put together.

In fact what EU is right now, a fine mess of the combined effort of all our governments, to control, shape, and influence the policies that apply to all of us in Europe. There are strong business lobbies in EU and in our countries individually, whose interests are placed above the common good of the people. Our leaders are often placing their personal aspirations above Europe's common future as well.



The funny thing is that the same people who despise EU and call it undemocratic, are the same ones who do not want to see it democratic, by proceeding to some kind of federation. When we try to implement reforms that will push with its democratization as an institution and make it transparent to its citizens, they protest in fear of losing their national interests. In many cases their actions simply mask theirs or some rich individuals' personal interests.


What do you want your country to be? A small feudal state that is controlled by rich European or national oligarchs, or to belong to a federal Union of nations that can decide on their affairs united, be more powerful and less susceptible to manipulation? Both from inside and outside of your nation's borders.

It is decision time for us as citizens, but also for our leaders and leading elites. Our actions will influence the future of our continent and our future generations, so we've got to be responsible.I am afraid that we have no other alternatives, in a globalized world.

State Owned, or Privately Owned?

One of the greatest dilemmas in our societies and one of the main friction points between the main political ideologies, is the ownership of the public services. Should they be state owned, or must everything be liberalized and owned privately?

Until recently in most European countries, the main services were public. Telecommunications, health, education, pension schemes. The last few decades we see a surge in privatizations, everywhere in our continent. Is this the right way to move forward?

The public in general are very skeptical about liberalizations. Yet if you think about it, we are all customers of many private companies of telecommunications, one sector that has been deregulated widely in most of Europe. Most of us have subscribed with cheaper than the State owned services and companies, so why are we still complaining? 

Some do not have telephone landlines anymore, rather we receive our phone services through a modem of the digital TV and internet. There is a variety of companies offering a variety of services and different prices and budget bundles, so we have a lot to chose from. In other words deregulation is not necessarily something bad, but something that we all use and profit out of it.

Let us not be hypocrites, we all shop around and find the best quotes and sign up to the best offer. But perhaps it is when we have to deal with its side effects, like the loss of jobs in the public sector or their relocation out of our country, that we protest about it.

In Europe most of us have embraced capitalism and its free market, but can we do anything to protect ourselves from the negative effects of liberalization, while still reaping its benefits? 

If we privatize everything, then what will we be paying our governments for and what will be their responsibilities towards us if we can't hold them responsible for anything? They will provide us with very little if anything. And since many companies merge and buy each other off, if one big multinational corporation buys a whole sector, it can end up owning the whole health system for example of one country.

Small countries are particularly vulnerable here, since they have small public sectors and for a large multinational company is so easy to buy it off. But that will mean that gradually small nations may lose their independence and sovereignty not to another nation, but to a large corporation. Some believe that without a state intervention, they will be "freer!"

If we take the above in consideration, then we certainly free ourselves from the "evil" of state government but we throw ourselves at the mercy of rich private owners! To me that is going backwards to a new kind of feudalism that is not linked to land ownership rather to goods, services and commodities.

And as large corporations care little for anything if there is no profit to be made out of it, what will they do once they have full control of one sector? If one private this time company is owning a whole sector, aren't we going back to square one, where we had to deal with the monopoly of the state companies?

In other words we will need to place strong and effective rules to stop this from happening and protect the markets of the small nations, from being monopolized by large multinationals.

But can we liberalize everything and where do we draw the line? Some services and goods are a human right so why give it to the hands of a few, when if nothing else they should be free and available to all? Take water and sanitation services, education, pensions or social security for example.

If the state decided that it does not want to provide me with a pension, then it should not be taxing me as much and raise my salary. If I have a higher salary, then I can seek out a private pension scheme. Many claim that in the future the state will not be able, or should not provide its citizens with social protection and pensions.

We all must realize this and seek out a private pension scheme for security and better services, that the private sector is rumored to offer when compared with any public company. But even these private schemes are not safe. They can also go bust and all the money that you paid all those years, can just end up in the pockets of some devious folk that gambled with it or invested it badly.

The health,welfare and education of your people is the best investment you can make as a statesman. A healthy and educated population is an asset for the future, as it is productive and it attracts more  investments.

If you allow private companies to provide such basic rights to your people, then your nation is dependent on the interests of these providers and only the rich can get the best treatments or education. This of course will create an unchangeable, unequal society of those who can afford better health and those who will have to compromise to disease, because they can not afford it.

Privately owned education is still an issue and the status of its degrees or diplomas are not equally recognized as the state run universities in many countries. So while one spends a lot of money to attain a degree, he or she can have trouble in finding a job that will offer the same salary expectations with someone that holds a degree from a state run university.

And if the privately owned educational institution goes bust in the future, there are no guarantees that your degree will still be of any value in the business world.

Also what if at an old age you are informed that the life insurance company that you had a contract with, was bought off by another or went bust. Your money do not worth anything anymore and you must agree into another pension scheme or receive nothing at all. Can there be any guarantees that you are going to get a pension, even with a private insurance?


If we have a look to the U.K. when they liberalized their postal services, we will see that private companies are interested only in what is profitable. They are keen to provide service to large towns and cities and mainly packets and parcels that bring more profit. They are not really interested in postcards or letters addressed to small villages or isolated regions of the country.

They have to wait a disproportionate amount of time to receive these kind of services and in fact in those regions, the state owned mail services kept their market.

Rail way prices are extremely high in the U.K. and there is a fine mess with parking regulations, since each company tries to fine as many people as they can to raise more revenue. The traffic wards are pushed to stick to a quota of fines to make the business profitable. I do not think that this can be considered as "better service" rather an unjust money making business for some, while it should be in place to make sure that citizens abide by traffic laws.

We are being transformed into manic consumers, while we are being convinced that our "freedom" is our ability to keep buying and seek out new deals and budget services. It is another thing to try and provide better "services" and another thing to try and fleece people off their money in any way you can.


Even worse this economic system that we have adopted is expanding to new markets. Countries like India, Brazil and China are joining and adapting fast. So we in Europe not only are being fleeced of our money but our jobs as well, since the capitalists want always cheaper workforce and we with our higher living standards and demands, have deprived them from it.


To conclude deregulation in certain sectors has led to a booming of new technologies and industries the past few decades. In telecommunications, transportation and other former state owned sectors, privatizations were hugely beneficial. In some other sectors like the postal services the transition was not very successful and was handled badly in many countries.

But privatization can not be used as panacea for all sectors, especially those affecting the social structure of a society. Not that we should approve a "nanny" state that provides all and creates dependency, condemning certain social groups to chronic idleness. The state should encourage innovation and allow privately owned companies to blossom, but it should give equal importance to SMEs and local businesses as well, not just multinationals.


State intervention is needed, together with a free market so that each can control and influence the other. We do need some state laws to "regulate the deregulation,"or we ourselves will end up being treated as commodities in the end.

It ain't anything new.Relations between Europe and Turkey.

At the zenith of Ottoman power, no Christian state could match it. In the sixteenth century, the French came to the Porte as supplicants and Elizabeth I was so desperate for an alliance that she told Sultan Murad III that Islam and Protestantism were kindred faiths.

In 1623 a French political theorist placed the “great Turke” above all the rulers of Christendom, second in power only to the Pope. Defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683 is often taken as the moment when the rot set in, but in fact the empire performed respectably against its enemies for much of the eighteenth century as well.

Only during and after the Napoleonic wars did the balance of power unambiguously against it, which was why successive sultans devoted so much energy to centralizing the state and modernizing its institutions. The main challenge they faced came from Christendom’s successor, Europe.

 Initially the empire lay outside the so-called Concert of Great Powers. But in the Treaty of Paris which concluded the Crimean War in 1856 it was recognized for the first time as forming part of the “Public Law and System of Europe”, a curious phrase that implied its entry into a broader civilization. Europe stood for a set of values and the Ottoman empire was being asked to sign up to these much as the European Union has recently required its successor to do.

Another article of the 1856 treaty spelled out the price of membership, the sultan declaring his intention to improve the condition of his subjects “without distinction of Religion or Race” and to make manifest his “generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire”.

As this odd combination of commitments suggests,“Europe” stood for a strange mixture of ideas-freedom of worship and equal treatment for all, on the one hand, and special solicitude for Christians on the other; respect for state sovereignty, and at the same time, concern for the rights of the individual.

With time, other ideas bubbled out of Europe as well- the rights of individual nations to independence, as manifested in the rise of Italy, France and Germany; the expansion of free trade and the notion of an autonomous market; the redefinition of religion as a matter of private individual conscience. Into the Ottoman lands poured Europeans of all nationalities- businessmen and investors, soldiers and relief workers, reporters and government advisers.

Salonica changed faster and more dramatically than ever before: as the nineteenth century progressed, it became simultaneously more “European” and more “Oriental”, more closely integrated in the empire, and more threatened by nationalist rivalries, more conscious of itself as a city and yet more bitterly divided. But all these paradoxes and apparent contradictions were nothing more than the manifestation of forces evident in the empire as a whole, an empire transforming itself in the shadow of Europe.


from the book: "Salonica, city of Ghosts". By Mark Mazower.