Ο ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΒΙΟΜΗΧΑΝΩΝ(ΣΕΒ) ΑΠΟΤΙΕΙ ΦΟΡΟ ΤΙΜΗΣ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΕΚΤΕΛΕΣΤΕΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΚΥΠΡΙΩΝ

ΕΧΕΙ ΕΙΠΩΘΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΕΧΕΙ ΔΙΑΠΙΣΤΩΘΕΙ ΠΟΛΛΕΣ ΦΟΡΕΣ ΟΤΙ ΤΟ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟ ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΙ ΠΑΤΡΙΔΑ.

ΓΙΑ ΜΙΑ ΑΚΟΜΗ ΦΟΡΑ ΑΥΤΟ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΚΝΥΕΤΑΙ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΩ ΠΕΡΙΣΤΑΤΙΚΟ.

Ο ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΒΙΟΜΗΧΑΝΩΝ (ΣΕΒ) ,Ο ΤΟΥΡΚΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΒΙΟΜΗΧΑΝΩΝ(TUSIAD), Ο ΕΛΛΗΝΟΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΕΡΓΟΔΟΤΩΝ(OEB) ΚΑΙ Ο ΤΟΥΡΚΟΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΣΤΟΙΧΟΣ(SAD)ΕΚΑΝΑΝ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΣΤΑ ΚΑΤΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΤΟΥΡΚΟΥΣ ΕΔΑΦΗ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ.

ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΕΚΔΟΘΗΚΕ

ΜΙΑ ΚΟΙΝΗ ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ

ΟΛΩΝ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΥΧΩΝ

ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΠΡΟΧΩΡΗΣΕΙ ΓΡΗΓΟΡΑ (ΕΝΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ 2009) Η ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΑ

ΕΠΙΛΥΣΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟΥ.

ΓΙΑΤΙ ΑΡΑΓΕ ΟΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΚΥΠΡΙΟΙ  ΒΙΟΜΗΧΑΝΟΙ ΜΕΤΕΧΟΥΝ ΣΕ ΤΕΤΟΙΕΣ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ

–ΚΑΙ ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ΣΤΑ ΚΑΤΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ!!!–

ΚΑΙ ΠΙΕΖΟΥΝ ΓΙΑ ΑΜΕΣΗ ΛΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΑΜΑ ΜΕ ΤΟΥΣ ΘΥΤΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ?

ΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΑ ΩΡΑ ΠΟΥ ΟΙ ΤΟΥΡΚΟΙ ΣΥΝΕΧΙΖΟΥΝ ΤΙΣ ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΑΠΕΝΑΝΤΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΚΥΠΡΟ.

ΤΟ «ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΟ» ΑΛΛΟΘΙ

ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΙΑ ΔΕΝ ΜΠΟΡΕΙ ΝΑ ΕΞΑΓΝΙΣΕΙ

ΤΟ ΞΕΠΟΥΛΗΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ

ΜΕ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΕΣ ΑΝΑΛΟΓΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΞΕΠΟΥΛΗΜΑΤΟΣ

ΠΟΥ ΕΓΙΝΕ ΜΕ ΤΙΣ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΕΣ ΖΥΡΙΧΗΣ – ΛΟΝΔΙΝΟΥ

ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ Κ.ΚΑΡΑΜΑΝΛΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ Ε.ΑΒΕΡΩΦ.

ΣΚΙΤΣΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΓΑΖΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ LATUFF

O Carlos Latuff για τη Γάζα.

Έργα του νεαρού Βραζιλιάνου σκιτσογράφου που καλούν τον κόσμο να καταδικάσει την Ισραηλινή εισβολή στη Γάζα.

«Οι εικόνες δεν είναι σκληρές. Οι πόλεμοι είναι.[…] Αν η τέχνη μου είναι ικανή να ανοίξει τα μάτια των ανθρώπων, είναι κάτι που μόνο ο χρόνος μπορεί να το δείξει»

Ο Κάρλος Λατούφ, γελοιογράφος, δημιουργός κόμικς και πολυδιαβασμένος μπλόγκερ του διαδικτύου, είναι ένα από τα πιο χαρακτηριστικά παραδείγματα καλλιτεχνών που δίνουν μια νέα διάσταση στον παρεξηγημένο όρο «στρατευμένη τέχνη». Γεννήθηκε στο Ρίο Ντε Τζανέιρο το 1968 και ζει στη Βραζιλία, ταξιδεύοντας συχνά σε διάφορες εμπόλεμες ζώνες καταγράφοντας με τη γελοιογραφική του πένα τη φρίκη του πολέμου, τη σκληρότητα των ανθρώπων, τις αναπόφευκτες συνέπειες του ιμπεριαλισμού, του μεταμφιεσμένου με τη μάσκα του ελευθερωτή. Εχει πολλούς φανατικούς φίλους και θαυμαστές σε όλη τη Γη που αναδημοσιεύουν ελεύθερα, προωθούν και χρησιμοποιούν για κάθε πιθανό λόγο τα σκίτσα του και τις ιστορίες του, αλλά και ορκισμένους εχθρούς. Για να μπορέσει να προσεγγίσει με την τέχνη του όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερους αναγνώστες αρνείται κατηγορηματικά την κατοχύρωση των πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων της δουλειάς του, επιτρέποντας σε όποιον επιθυμεί την αναπαραγωγή των έργων του.

ΤΟ ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΤΑΜΕΙΟ(IMF) ΕΝΔΕΧΕΤΑΙ ΝΑ ΤΥΠΩΣΕΙ ΤΟ ΝΕΟ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑ

Η ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗ ΚΡΙΣΗ ΒΡΙΣΚΕΤΑΙ ΣΤΟ ΑΠΟΓΕΙΟ ΤΗΣ

ΚΑΙ Η ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΗ ΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ ΦΕΡΝΩΝΤΑΣ

ΤΟΝ ΝΕΟ ΜΕΣΑΙΩΝΑ

ΠΡΩΤΑ ΧΡΕΟΚΩΠΗΣΑΝ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΕΣ , ΜΕΤΑ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΡΑ ΟΛΟΚΛΗΡΑ ΚΡΑΤΗ

Ο ΣΑΡΚΟΖΙ ΚΑΙ Ο ΜΠΡΑΟΥΝ ΖΗΤΑΝΕ

ΕΠΕΜΒΑΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΕΘΝΟΥΣ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΤΑΜΕΙΟΥ(International Monetary Fund)

ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΟΔΟΤΗΣΕΙ ΤΑ ΧΡΕΟΚΩΠΗΜΕΝΑ ΚΡΑΤΗ

ΑΛΛΑ ΚΑΙ ΝΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΗΣΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΗ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ.

ΝΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΗΣΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΣ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΟΣ ΧΩΡΟΦΥΛΑΚΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΠΙΤΑΛΙΣΜΟΥ.

ΒΕΒΑΙΑ ΟΙ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΙ ΔΕΝ ΒΛΕΠΟΥΝ ΜΕ ΚΑΛΟ ΜΑΤΙ ΤΑ ΣΑΛΙΑΡΙΣΜΑΤΑ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ-ΑΓΓΛΙΑΣ

ΑΛΛΑ ΑΥΤΟ ΘΑ ΚΟΣΤΟΛΟΓΗΘΕΙ ΑΡΓΟΤΕΡΑ

ΤΟ ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΤΑΜΕΙΟ ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΙ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ ΤΟ ΜΑΚΡΥ ΧΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΟΡΓΑΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΗΝΩΜΕΝΩΝ ΕΘΝΩΝ.

ΠΡΟΙΣΤΑΜΕΝΗ ΑΡΧΗ ΕΙΝΑΙ Ο ΓΑΛΛΟΣ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟΛΟΓΟΣ,ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΣ ,ΜΕΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΓΑΛΛΙΚΟΥ ΣΟΣΙΑΛΙΣΤΙΚΟΥ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΟΣ Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

ΤΟ ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΤΑΜΕΙΟ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΜΕΝΟ

ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΙΣ ΗΠΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΗ

ΚΑΝΕΙ ΧΡΗΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΔΑΝΕΙΑΚΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΝ ΜΕ ΜΟΝΟ

ΣΤΟΧΟ ΤΟΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΟ ΤΩΝ ΚΡΑΤΩΝ ΠΟΥ ΔΑΝΕΙΖΕΙ

ΜΕ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΙΟ ΕΠΑΧΘΕΙΣ ΟΡΟΥΣ.

ΕΤΣΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΘΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΣΚΟΠΙΑ ΟΤΑΝ ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΗΣΑΝ ΟΙ ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΟΤΡΑΦΕΙΣ ΗΓΕΤΕΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΝΑ ΔΑΝΕΙΣΤΟΥΝ ΑΠΟ ΑΥΤΟ

(HOW TO TAKE DOWN A GOVERNMENT PART I, PART II)

ΑΥΤΟ ΛΟΙΠΟΝ ΤΟ ΕΥΑΓΕΣ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΘΕΛΕΙ Η ΝΕΑ ΤΑΞΗ ΝΑ ΕΠΙΒΑΛΛΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΟ ΔΙΑΧΕΙΡΙΣΤΗ.

ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΟΜΩΣ ΤΑ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΔΝΤ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΡΚΕΤΑ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΔΑΝΕΙΣΟΥΝ

ΟΛΕΣ ΤΙΣ ΧΩΡΕΣ ΠΟΥ ΤΟ ΖΗΤΑΝΕ ΣΚΕΠΤΟΝΤΑΙ ΕΚΤΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΛΛΩΝ ΚΑΙ

ΤΟ ΣΕΝΑΡΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΤΥΠΩΣΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΝΕΟΥ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟΥ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΟΣ(Special Drawing Rights).

ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΑ ΕΝΩ ΒΡΙΣΚΕΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΧΡΕΟΚΟΠΙΑΣ ΘΑ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΗΣΕΙ ΣΑΝ ΕΚΔΟΤΙΚΗ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑ ΜΕ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΑΝΤΙΚΡΥΣΜΑ.

ΟΙ ΦΙΛΟΙ ΜΑΣ ΟΙ ΤΟΥΡΚΟΙ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΙ ΟΝΤΕΣ -ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑΤΙ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ-ΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΑΙ ΟΤΙ ΣΧΗΜΑΤΙΖΕΤΑΙ ΜΙΑ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΛΟΥΝ ΝΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΑ ΙΔΡΥΤΙΚΑ ΜΕΛΗ ΛΟΓΩ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗΣ ΘΕΣΗΣ ΣΕ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟ ΕΠΙΠΕΔΟ-ΑΝΤΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΙΓΥΠΤΟΥ.

ΚΑΙ Η ΚΡΙΣΗ ΟΠΩΣ ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΤΕΛΕΙΩΜΟ ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΙ……

ΚΑΙ Η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΠΟΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ?

Η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΑΣΧΟΛΕΙΤΑΙ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΒΑΤΟΠΕΔΙΟ, ΜΕ ΤΑ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΑ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΩΝ ΤΑΓΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ ΔΗΛΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΩΣΤΑΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΓΙΩΡΓΑΚΗ.

Α!! ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΙΘΑΝΟ ΑΝΑΣΧΗΜΑΤΙΣΜΟ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΗΣ…..

ΔΗΛΑΔΗ ….ΠΕΡΑ ΒΡΕΧΕΙ….

UPDATE 30 ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΥ 2008

UN calls for new ‘Bretton Woods’ financial rules to cope with global crisis

ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΤΣΑΡΙΔΑΣ

ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗ 24 ΣΕΠΤΕΜΒΡΙΟΥ ΓΙΟΡΤΑΖΕΤΑΙ Η ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΜΑΥΡΗΣ ΚΑΤΣΑΡΙΔΑΣ.

ΠΡΟΣΕΧΤΕ ΜΗΝ ΤΙΣ ΠΑΤΗΣΕΤΕ!!

ΚΑΙΡΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΝΑ ΜΑΘΟΥΜΕ ΑΝ ΠΡΟΒΛΕΠΕΤΑΙ

ΣΤΙΣ ΕΠΙΔΟΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ Δ’ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΙΚΟΥ ΠΑΚΕΤΟΥ

ΚΑΠΟΙΑ ΔΡΑΣΗ

ΩΣΤΕ ΝΑ ΠΑΡΟΥΜΕ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΤΙΣ

ΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΕΨΟΥΜΕ

ΚΑΙ ΜΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΙΛΑΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΗΜΕΡΕΣ ΚΑΙΡΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΝΑ ΜΑΘΕΤΕ ΤΟ ΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΩΝ ΗΜΕΡΩΝ ΟΠΩΣ ΤΟ ΒΡΗΚΑΜΕ ΣΥΓΚΕΝΤΡΩΤΙΚΑ

ΠΙΘΑΝΟΝ ΝΑ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΛΛΕΣ

ΟΠΟΙΟΣ ΤΙΣ ΒΡΕΙ ΑΣ ΤΙΣ ΚΑΤΑΘΕΣΕΙ

ΝΑ ΤΙΣ ΜΑΘΟΥΜΕ

ΑΝΟΙΧΤΗ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΠΙΕΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ Γ.Γ. ΤΟΥ ΝΑΤΟ…

..ΝΑ ΕΠΙΤΑΧΥΝΕΙ ΤΙΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΜΠΕΙ Η FYROM ΣΤΟ ΝΑΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ ΕΣΤΕΙΛΑΝ 20 «ΔΙΑΚΕΚΡΙΜΕΝΟΙ» ΔΙΠΛΩΜΑΤΕΣ, ΑΚΑΔΗΜΑΙΚΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΕΘΝΕΙΣ ΑΞΙΩΜΑΤΟΥΧΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ.

ΛΥΣΣΑ ΚΑΚΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΧΕΙ ΠΙΑΣΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΝΤΑΞΗ ΤΗΣ FYROM ΣΤΟ ΝΑΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΕ

ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΧΟΥΝ ΒΑΦΤΙΣΕΙ ΗΔΗ…..»ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ»

ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΟΤΙ ΧΡΗΣΙΜΟΠΟΙΟΥΝ ΤΟ ΣΕΝΑΡΙΟ ΤΗΣ «ΜΕΓΑΛΗΣ ΑΛΒΑΝΙΑΣ»

ΓΙΑ ΕΚΦΟΒΙΣΜΟ

ΠΟΥ ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΔΙΣΤΑΣΟΥΝ ΝΑ ΤΟ ΒΑΛΟΥΝ ΣΕ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ

ΑΝ ΔΕΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΒΓΕΙ ΤΟ ΣΕΝΑΡΙΟ ΕΙΣΔΟΧΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΣΚΟΠΙΩΝ ΣΤΟ ΝΑΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΕ.

Η ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ «ΔΙΑΚΕΚΡΙΜΕΝΟΙ» ΑΞΙΩΜΑΤΟΥΧΟΙ

ΔΕΙΤΕ ΤΑ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΤΕΧΟΥΝ

ΚΑΙ ΒΓΑΛΤΕ ΣΥΜΠΕΡΑΣΜΑ!!!

ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΜΠΟΥΜΠΟΥΚΙΑ…

Open letter to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: Invitation to the Republic of Macedonia to join NATO

Among those who have signed the letter are Soren Jessen-Petersen, former Special Representative of the Secretary General and UN Administrator in Kosovo, and former EU Special Representative to Macedonia. Mort Abramowitz, former US Assistant Secretary of State, Daan Everts, former head of OSCE Mission to Kosovo, Gerald Knaus, the Chairman of European Stability Initiative, Edward P. Joseph, former Director of the International Crisis Group and Mark Leonard, the Director of European Council on Foreign Relations, are also signatories.

Dear Secretary General:

As twenty European and American senior diplomats, academics, and international officials with long service in and on the Balkans, we are deeply concerned about the prospects for the Republic of Macedonia to join NATO.

We understand and appreciate the Alliance’s commitment at Bucharest, provided in paragraph 20 of the Summit Declaration, effectively acknowledging that Macedonia has fulfilled the criteria for entry. We also note, however, that this paragraph appears to make an Alliance invitation to Macedonia contingent upon its coming to terms with Greece over the country’s name. If true, this requirement would appear to be at variance with Greece’s commitment under the 1995 Interim Accord not to block Macedonia’s accession, provided the latter is referred to as «the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.»

Given the rejection by Greece of the UN mediator’s compromise proposal to resolve the name dispute, «Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)», made after intensive consultations with the parties in the run-up to the Bucharest Summit, we are concerned that no satisfactory solution will be found in time to meet the July deadline for Macedonia to keep pace with its Adriatic Charter colleagues, Albania and Croatia.

It is our view that continuing to protract Macedonia’s entry to NATO could have serious consequences for that country’s stability and for its neighbor, Kosovo. We believe that the converse is equally true; that issuing Macedonia a prompt invitation to membership would send a most welcome signal of reassurance to all parties in Macedonia who are cooperating in good faith to maintain that country’s multiethnic character. A NATO invitation would simultaneously send a timely and necessary signal of caution to all those in and outside the region who would like to keep open the question of final borders in Macedonia, Kosovo or elsewhere in the region.

In short, whatever the Alliance decides to do with respect to Macedonia’s invitation could have some impact on regional stability. As you know, the foundation of the international strategy for South-East Europe rests on Euro-Atlantic integration. Any interruption in the path toward NATO or EU membership by a deserving would-be member presents a serious complication for that strategy, and sends a most disconcerting message to the region.

After fifteen years of mediation, the issues and obstacles to the Greek dispute over Macedonia’s name are well known. Identity issues have plagued the region since the violent break up of former Yugoslavia began in the early 1990s. NATO played a crucial role in averting major conflict in Macedonia in 2001. A key component of the Ohrid Peace Agreement was the painful concessions to the Albanian minority on identity. Mounting more pressure on the Macedonians to make additional concessions on their identity could be counter-productive.

The answer to the dispute over Macedonia’s name lies in fair and reasonable compromise by both sides along the lines proposed by the UN mediator on the eve of Bucharest. We write you confident that you will work maximally to that end with all Alliance members and candidate countries in support of the UN mediation process.

Thank you for your consideration. Please accept the assurances of our highest consideration.

 

Signed*:

Ambassador Mort Abramowitz, former Assistant Secretary of State
Washington, DC

Ambassador Robert M. Beecroft, former Head of Mission, OSCE Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, former U.S. Special Envoy to the Bosnian Federation
Washington, DC

Ambassador Daan Everts, former Head of Mission, OSCE Mission to Kosovo
The Netherlands

Ambassador Robert W. Farrand, former Brcko Supervisor and Deputy High-Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Washington, DC

Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, former US Ambassador to Croatia
Townshend, Vermont

Ambassador Robert S. Gelbard, former US Special Representative of the President for the Balkans
Washington, DC

Dr. Michael Haltzel, former Staff Director for European Affairs
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC

Ambassador Don Hays, former Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Washington, DC

Dr. R. Bruce Hitchner, Chair
Dayton Project, Tufts University
Medford, MA

Soren Jessen-Petersen, former Special Representative of the Secretary General and UN Administrator in Kosovo, and former EU Special Representative to Macedonia
Washington, DC

Edward P. Joseph, former Director
International Crisis Group, Macedonia Project
Visiting Fellow, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Washington, DC

Gerald Knaus, Chairman
European Stability Initiative
Open Society Fellow
Berlin, Germany / Istanbul, Turkey

Mark Leonard, Director
European Council on Foreign Relations
London, UK

Ivan Krastev, Chair
Centre for Liberal Strategies
Sofia, Bulgaria

Dr. James Lyon
Belgrade, Serbia

Dr. Gregory Michaelidis
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Buffalo, NY

Ambassador Bill Montgomery, former US Ambassador to Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia-Montenegro
Dubrovnik, Croatia

Gerry Robinson, Q.C., Fellow
Center for the Study of Democracy
Queen’s University (Canada)
Toronto, Canada

T.K. Vogel
Brussels, Belgium

Nicholas Whyte, Head of Brussels Office
Independent Diplomat
Brussels, Belgium

 

ΚΟΣΟΒΟ : Η ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ

Η ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ

ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ

ΕΝΑΝΤΙ ΣΤΗ ΔΙΑΛΥΣΗ

ΤΗΣ ΓΙΟΥΓΚΟΣΛΑΒΙΑΣ:

ΟΙ ΠΕΡΙΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΟΣΝΙΑΣ

 

ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΣΥΦΟΠΕΔΙΟΥ.

 

ΣΥΓΚΡΙΤΙΚΗ ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ.

ΑΘΗΝΑ 2004

ΣΕΡΒΙΚΟΣ ΣΤΡΑΤΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΚΟΣΟΒΟ;-ΣΕ ΔΥΣΧΕΡΗ ΘΕΣΗ Η ΑΘΗΝΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΙΣ ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΚΟΣΟΒΟ

Σε δυσχερή θέση η Αθήνα για το Κόσοβο 

Μόνον με επαρκή ανταλλάγματα αξίζει να αναγνωρίσει τη μονομερή ανακήρυξη της ανεξαρτησίας του που μεθοδεύει η Δύση

Του Σταυρου Λυγερου

Την άνοιξη του 1999, με τους βομβαρδισμούς του ΝΑΤΟ, η Δύση επέβαλε την de facto απόσχιση του Κοσσυφοπεδίου από την Σερβία. Τώρα, μεθοδεύει την ολοκλήρωση αυτού που άρχισε τότε με κύριο κίνητρο την αποσταθεροποίηση του καθεστώτος Μιλόσεβιτς.

ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΑ ΕΔΩ

Σερβικός στρατός στο Κόσοβο

Για επέμβαση μίλησε ο πρόεδρος της Σερβίας, αν ξεσπάσει βία και μείνει ακάλυπτος ο σερβικός πληθυσμός

O σερβικός στρατός είναι έτοιμος να επέμβει ανά πάσα στιγμή στο Κοσσυφοπέδιο σε περίπτωση που ξεσπάσει βία στην επαρχία και η KFOR αδυνατεί να προστατεύσει τον σερβικό πληθυσμό, ξεκαθάρισε χθες από το βήμα της Βουλής ο πρόεδρος της Σερβίας Μπόρις Τάντιτς.

ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΑ ΕΔΩ

Η ΑΝΕΞΑΡΤΗΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΟΒΟΥ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΙΚΗ ΕΥΚΑΙΡΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΡΩΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΥΤΙΝ

Η ανεξαρτησία του Κοσόβου αποτελεί στρατηγική ευκαιρία για την Ρωσία του Πούτιν να αποδείξει οτι είναι ισότιμη δύναμη με τις ΗΠΑ.

Εχει το στρατηγικό πλεονέκτημα ακόμη και της στρατιωτικής επέμβασης πέραν των οικονομικών αντιποίνων εναντίον χωρών της ΕΕ.

Εάν η Ρωσία δεν αντιδράσει στην ανεξαρτησία του Κοσόβου τότε θα υποστεί μιά τεράστια ήττα γοήτρου.

Διαβάστε το παρακάτω άρθρο που εκφράζει τις απόψεις

του George Friedman του www.stratfor.com

 

Russia: Kosovo and

the Asymmetry of Perceptions

By George Friedman

Kosovo appears to be an archaic topic. The Yugoslavian question was a 1990s issue, while the Kosovo issue has appeared to be one of those conflicts that never quite goes away but isn’t regarded very seriously by the international community. You hear about it but you don’t care about it. However, Kosovo is getting very serious again.The United States and Europe appear committed to making Kosovo, now a province of Serbia, an independent state. Of course, Serbia opposes this, but more important, so does Russia. Russia opposed the original conflict, but at that point it was weak and its wishes were irrelevant. Russia opposes independence for Kosovo now, and it is far from the weak state it was in 1999 — and is not likely to take this quietly. Kosovo’s potential as a flash point between Russia and the West makes it important again. Let’s therefore review the action to this point.In 1999, NATO, led by the United States, conducted a 60-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia and its main component, Serbia. The issue was the charge that Yugoslavia was sponsoring the mass murder of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, just as it had against Bosnian Muslims. The campaign aimed to force the Yugoslav army out of Kosovo while allowing a NATO force to occupy and administer the province.Two strands led to this action. The first was the fear that the demonstrable atrocities committed by Serbs in Bosnia were being repeated in Kosovo. The second was the general feeling dominant in the 1990s that the international community’s primary task was dealing with rogue states behaving in ways that violated international norms. In other words, it was assumed that there was a general international consensus on how the world should look, that the United States was the leader of this international consensus and that there was no power that could threaten the United States or the unity of the vision. There were only weak, isolated rogue states that had to be dealt with. There was no real risk attached to these operations. Yugoslavia was identified as one of those rogue states. The United States, without the United Nations but with the backing of most European countries, dealt with it.There was no question that Serbs committed massive atrocities in Bosnia, and that Bosnians and Croats carried out massive atrocities against Serbs. These atrocities occurred in the context of Yugoslavia’s explosion after the end of the Cold War. Yugoslavia had been part of an arc running from the Danube to the Hindu Kush, frozen into place by the Cold War. Muslims had been divided by the line, with some living in the former Soviet Union but most on the other side. The Yugoslav state consisted of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims; it was communist but anti-Soviet and cooperated with the United States. It was an artificial state imposed on multiple nationalities by the victors of World War I and held in place after World War II by the force field created by U.S.-Soviet power. When the Soviets fell, the force field collapsed and Yugoslavia detonated, followed later by the rest of the arc.The NATO mission, then, was to stabilize the western end of this arc, Yugoslavia. The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states — such as Slovenia and Macedonia — built around a coherent national unit. This would stabilize Yugoslavia. The problem with this plan was that each nation-state would contain substantial ethnic minorities, regardless of attempts to redraw the borders. Thus, Bosnia contains Serbs. But the theory was that small states overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity so long as there was a dominant nation — unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping.So NATO decided to re-engineer the Balkans much as they were re-engineered after World War I. NATO and the United States got caught in a weird intellectual trap. On the one hand, there was an absolute consensus that the post-World War II borders of Europe were sacrosanct. If that wasn’t the case, then Hungarians living in Romanian Transylvania might want to rejoin Hungary, Turkish regions of Cyprus might want to join Turkey, Germany might want to reclaim Silesia and Northern Ireland might want to secede from the United Kingdom. All hell could break loose, and one of the ways Europe avoided hell after 1945 was a cardinal rule: No borders would shift.The re-engineering of Yugoslavia was not seen as changing borders. Rather, it was seen as eliminating a completely artificial state and freeing genuine nations to have their own states. But it was assumed that the historic borders of those states could not be changed merely because of the presence of other ethnic groups concentrated in a region. So the desire of Bosnian Serbs to join Serbia was rejected, both because of the atrocious behavior of the Bosnian Serbs and because it would have shifted the historic borders of Bosnia. If all of this seems a bit tortured, please recall the hubris of the West in the 1990s. Anything was possible, including re-engineering the land of the south Slavs, as Yugoslavia’s name translates in English.In all of this, Serbia was seen as the problem. Rather than viewing Yugoslavia as a general failed project, Serbia was seen not so much as part of the failure but as an intrinsically egregious actor that had to be treated differently than the rest, given its behavior, particularly against the Bosnians. When it appeared that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims in 1999, the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene.In fact, the level of atrocities in Kosovo never approached what happened in Bosnia, nor what the Clinton administration said was going on before and during the war. At one point, it was said that hundreds of thousands of men were missing, and later that 10,000 had been killed and bodies were being dissolved in acid. The post-war analysis never revealed any atrocities on this order of magnitude. But that was not the point. The point was that the United States had shifted to a post-Cold War attitude, and that since there were no real threats against the United States, the primary mission of foreign policy was dealing with minor rogue states, preventing genocide and re-engineering unstable regions. People have sought explanations for the Kosovo war in vast and complex conspiracies. The fact is that the motivation was a complex web of domestic political concerns and a genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world.The United States dealt with its concerns over Kosovo by conducting a 60-day bombing campaign designed to force Yugoslavia to withdraw from Kosovo and allow NATO forces in. The Yugoslav government, effectively the same as the Serbian government by then, showed remarkable resilience, and the air campaign was not nearly as effective as the air forces had hoped. The United States needed a war-ending strategy. This is where the Russians came in.Russia was weak and ineffective, but it was Serbia’s only major ally. The United States prevailed on the Russians to initiate diplomatic contacts and persuade the Serbs that their position was isolated and hopeless. The carrot was that the United State agreed that Russian peacekeeping troops would participate in Kosovo. This was crucial for the Serbians, as it seemed to guarantee the interests of Serbia in Kosovo, as well as the rights of Serbs living in Kosovo. The deal brokered by the Russians called for a withdrawal of the Serbian army from Kosovo and entry into Kosovo of a joint NATO-Russian force, with the Russians guaranteeing that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia.This ended the war, but the Russians were never permitted — let alone encouraged — to take their role in Serbia. The Russians were excluded from the Kosovo Force (KFOR) decision-making process and were isolated from NATO’s main force. When Russian troops took control of the airport in Pristina in Kosovo at the end of the war, they were surrounded by NATO troops.In effect, NATO and the United States reneged on their agreement with Russia. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Foreign Ministry caved in the face of this reneging, leaving the Russian military — which had ordered the Kosovo intervention — hanging. In 1999, this was a fairly risk-free move by the West. The Russians were in no position to act.The degree to which Yeltsin’s humiliation in Kosovo led to the rise of Vladimir Putin is not fully understood. Putin represented a faction in the intelligence-military community that regarded Kosovo as the last straw. There were, of course, other important factors leading to the rise of Putin, but the Russian perception that the United States had double-crossed them in an act of supreme contempt was a significant factor. Putin came to office committed to regaining Russian intellectual influence after Yeltsin’s inertia.The current decision by the United States and some European countries to grant independence to Kosovo must be viewed in this context. First, it is the only case in Yugoslavia in which borders are to shift because of the presence of a minority. Second, it continues the policy of re-engineering Yugoslavia. Third, it proceeds without either a U.N. or NATO mandate, as an action supported by independent nations — including the United States and Germany. Finally, it flies in the face of Russian wishes.This last one is the critical point. The Russians clearly are concerned that this would open the door for the further redrawing of borders, paving the way for Chechen independence movements, for example. But that isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that Serbia is an ally of Russia, and the Russians do not want Kosovar independence to happen. From Putin’s point of view, he came to power because the West simply wouldn’t take Russian wishes seriously. If there were a repeat of that display of indifference, his own authority would be seriously weakened.Putin is rebuilding the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. He is meeting with the Belarusians over reintegration. He is warning Ukraine not to flirt with NATO membership. He is reasserting Russian power in the Caucasus and Central Asia. His theme is simple: Russia is near and strong; NATO is far away and weak. He is trying to define Russian power in the region. Though Kosovo is admittedly peripheral to this region, if no European power is willing to openly challenge Russian troops in Kosovo, then Russia will have succeeded in portraying NATO as a weak and unreliable force.If the United States and some European powers can create an independent Kosovo without regard to Russian wishes, Putin’s prestige in Russia and the psychological foundations of his grand strategy will suffer a huge blow. If Kosovo is granted independence outside the context of the United Nations, where Russia has veto power, he will be facing the same crisis Yeltsin did. If he repeats Yeltsin’s capitulation, he will face substantial consequences. Putin and the Russians repeatedly have warned that they wouldn’t accept independence for Kosovo, and that such an act would lead to an uncontrollable crisis. Thus far, the Western powers involved appear to have dismissed this. In our view, they shouldn’t. It is not so much what Putin wants as the consequences for Putin if he does not act. He cannot afford to acquiesce. He will create a crisis.Putin has two levers. One is economic. The natural gas flowing to Europe, particularly to Germany, is critical for the Europeans. Putin has a large war chest saved from high energy prices. He can live without exports longer than the Germans can live without imports. It is assumed that he wouldn’t carry out this cutoff. This assumption does not take into account how important the Kosovo issue is to the Russians.The second option is what we might call the “light military” option. Assume that Putin would send a battalion or two of troops by air to Belgrade, load them onto trucks and send them toward Pristina, claiming this as Russia’s right under agreements made in 1999. Assume a squadron of Russian aircraft would be sent to Belgrade as well. A Russian naval squadron, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, already is headed to the Mediterranean. Obviously, this is not a force that could impose anything on NATO. But would the Germans, for example, be prepared to open fire on these troops?If that happened, there are other areas of interest to Russia and the West where Russia could exert decisive military power, such as the Baltic states. If Russian troops were to enter the Baltics, would NATO rush reinforcements there to fight them? The Russian light military threat in Kosovo is that any action there could lead to a Russian reaction elsewhere.The re-engineering of the Balkans always has assumed that there is no broader geopolitical price involved. Granting Kosovo independence would put Russia in a position in which interests that it regards as fundamental are challenged. Even if the West doesn’t see why this should be the case, the Russians have made clear that it is so — and have made statements essentially locking themselves into a response or forcing themselves to accept humiliation. Re-engineering a region where there is no risk is one thing; re-engineering a region where there is substantial risk is another.In our view, the Russians would actually welcome a crisis. Putin wants to demonstrate that Russia is a great power. That would influence thinking throughout the former Soviet Union, sobering eastern Central Europe as well — and Poland in particular. Confronting the West as an equal and backing it into a corner is exactly what he would like. In our view, Putin will seize the Kosovo issue not because it is of value in and of itself but because it gives him a platform to move his strategic policy forward.The Germans have neither the resources nor the appetite for such a crisis. The Americans, bogged down in the Islamic world, are hardly in a position to deal with a crisis over Kosovo. The Russian view is that the West has not reviewed its policies in the Balkans since 1999 and has not grasped that the geopolitics of the situation have changed. Nor, in our view, has Washington or Berlin grasped that a confrontation is exactly what the Russians are looking for.We expect the West to postpone independence again, and to keep postponing it. But the Albanians might force the issue by declaring unilateral independence. The Russians would actually be delighted to see this. But here is the basic fact: For the United States and its allies, Kosovo is a side issue of no great importance. For the Russians, it is both a hot-button issue and a strategic opportunity. The Russians won’t roll over this time. And the asymmetry of perceptions is what crises are made of.

ΚΟΙΤΑ ΠΟΙΟΙ ΔΙΑΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΝΤΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΙΣ ΚΛΙΜΑΤΙΚΕΣ ΑΛΛΑΓΕΣ

8 Δεκεμβρίου 2007:Παγκόσμια μέρα κατά των κλιματικών αλλαγών.

Οπως βλέπετε, στην αφίσσα παραπάνω, διάφοροι φορείς καλούν τον Λαό-λάθος τους πολίτες-να διαδηλώσουν την «αντίθεση» τους στις κλιματικές αλλαγές.

Η Παγκόσμια αυτή μέρα-προφανώς καθορισμένη απο τον ΟΗΕ-συναγείρει σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο όλες τις ΜΚΟ οικολογικές και συνεργαζόμενες οργανώσεις για μιά διαμαρτυρία «πρός ποιόν/ποιούς άραγε?»

Πρός τις Κυβερνήσεις που αποτελούν μέλη του ΟΗΕ.

Δηλαδή πρός τον εαυτό του…

Η κοροιδία είναι μεγάλη αλλά πόσοι άραγε χρησιμοποιούν την λογική για να την καταλάβουν ?

Σε μιά προσπάθεια ενημέρωσης σας παραθέτουμε τα παρακάτω links και σας προτρέπουμε να τα διαβάσετε.

Περιγράφουν τις πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις με εργαλείο τις καιρικές συνθήκες και πως αναπτύσσονται απο τις συμμετέχουσες στόν ΟΗΕ Κυβερνήσεις.

Είναι άξιο παρατήρησης ότι στην agenda των διαμαρτυριών δεν περιλαμβάνονται τα αιτήμα κατάργησης της ανάπτυξης της τεχνολογίας του «καιρού» γιά πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις.

Φαίνεται ότι μετά την τρομοκράτηση των λαών απο την «τρομοκρατία» το δεύτερο εργαλείο επιβολής είναι η «τρομοκρατία του καιρού».

Οι λαοί πρέπει να αισθάνονται την «αόρατη απειλή» γιά να μήν σηκώνουν το κεφάλι.

1. Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare

‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.

 

Ολόκληρο το άρθρο σε pdf

 

2. WEATHER CONTROL AND WEATHER WARFARE

(Από αυτό τό άρθρο-όσοι επιθυμείτε-αφαιρέστε τις μεταφυσικές πληροφορίες και κρατήστε τις υπόλοιπες)

 

3. WEATHER WARFAREby Bob Fitrakis

Οσοι ενδιαφέρονται μπορούν να βρούν περισσότερα στοιχεία στο διαδίκτυο βάζοντας στο ψαχτήρι «weather warfare».

 

60 ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΤΟΥ Ο.Η.Ε ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΡΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΘΝΙΚΟΥ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΚΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΠΑΛΑΙΣΤΙΝΗ

Η 29η Νοεμβρίου του 2007 είναι η 60η επέτειος της απόφασης της Γενικής Συνέλευσης του Ο.Η.Ε. για τον διαμελισμό της Παλαιστίνης και την δημιουργία δύο κρατών , ενός Αραβικού και ενός Ιουδαικού.