I. WORLDMAG - Obama blasts Supreme Court
President Obama has already made it known that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision which allows corporations to spend money on campaigns. Last night during his State of the Union address, he hammered the court again for its decision, with six of the nine justices sitting within spitting distance. Here’s what the president said: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. Justice Sam Alito, who was part of the majority ruling in the decision, shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true,” when Obama stated that it would allow spending by foreign entities. Foreign corporations are still forbidden by law not just from contributing to campaigns but also from spending any money on behalf of campaigns, and the majority’s opinion in this case specifically did not overturn that law. The presidential scolding of the high court is almost without precedent (coupled with his call for Congress to overturn the court’s ruling). While he made his point, it may not serve members of his party well in the next election. Democrats surrounding the justices in the House chamber stood and applauded – Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY even leaned closer to the justices to clap – video that Republicans can play on campaign ads for the next Democratic candidate who accepts any donation or support from a corporate interest. And they all do.
II. PROJECTSYNDICATE - The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church recently said on American TV that he feels “crucified” in Turkey, upsetting many Turks. Sadly, his Holiness is right. Yet his complaint is not with Islam but with the secular Turkish Republic. The Turkish state has kept the Halki Seminary, the only institution able to train Orthodox priests, closed since 1971. Even the Patriarch’s title “ecumenical” is lashed out at by some Turkish authorities and their nationalist supporters. Every year, international reports on religious freedom point to such pressures on the Patriarchate with concern, and they are right to do so. But why does Turkey do all this? What is the source of the problem? Things were better long ago. The first Turkish ruler to reign over the Ecumenical Patriarchate was Mehmed II, the Ottoman Sultan who conquered Constantinople in 1453. In line with the Islamic tradition of accepting the “People of the Book,” the young sultan granted amnesty to the patriarchate. He also gave the institution many privileges and authorities, no less than that which existed under the Byzantine emperors. Armenians and Jews later enjoyed the same autonomies. In the 19th century, the non-Muslim peoples of the empire also achieved the rights of equal citizenship with Muslims. That’s why the late Ottoman bureaucracy and the Ottoman Parliament included a great number of Greeks, Armenians and Jews — something you never see in republican Turkey. The Halki Seminary, opened in 1844, is a relic from that bygone age of pluralism. Nationalism is what destroyed this Pax Ottomana. It affected the peoples of the empire one by one, including, towards the end, the Turks. Many conflicts took place between the latter and the rest, and the great empire’s colossal collapse left a bitter taste in the mouths of all. The Armenians, who suffered the worst tragedy in 1915, never forgot nor forgave. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk founded the Republic in 1923, he defined the Patriarchate as “a center of perfidy.” As an alternative, he promoted a rival “Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate,” which became a bastion of ultra-nationalist ideology. Over the years, Atatürk’s ideas evolved into an official ideology called “Kemalism,” which had two main pillars: A self-styled secularism that bans anything but “the secular way of life,” and a fierce nationalism that defies anything it deems “non-Turkish.” The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as both a religious and “non-Turkish” institution, fits in neither category. Hence, throughout the Republican regime, and especially at times of military dominance, it faced official pressure and confiscation of property, as did all other non-Muslim and Muslim religious institutions. So part of the problem is the curse of history. But you can either trap yourself inside history or take lessons from it and move on. To date, unfortunately, Turkey’s nationalists, within both state and society, have opted for the former option. If one cause of the repression of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is nationalism, though, the other one is the other pillar of the Kemalist ideology: secularism. Turkey’ draconian laws on “national education” ban any sort of religious education unless it is strictly controlled by the state. The real motive behind this is the regime’s distaste for Islam. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a foreign observer observes, only receives “collateral damage.” A telling manifestation of this was seen recently in a live discussion on CNNTurk, the Turkish counterpart of the international news channel. A deputy from the CHP, the staunchly Kemalist People’s Republican Party, Muharrem İnce, who opposed the reopening of the Halki Seminary became angry. “Do you know who most wants to open the seminary in this country,” he loudly asked. “The Islamists! They want this, because they want to open Islamic schools as well.” This more liberal approach to non-Muslims can be observed in today’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) government, in power since 2002. The Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom makes this point nicely: “In November 2006, the [AKP dominated] Turkish parliament, as part of the reforms related to possible EU accession, passed a new law governing Lausanne religious minority foundations, easing procedures to establish foundations and allowing non-Turkish citizens in Turkey to open them… Then President Ahmet Necdet Sezer [a staunch Kemalist], however, vetoed the legislation. In February 2008, the parliament passed a similar law on the return of property confiscated from non-Muslim minorities... President Gül signed the legislation, which was also supported by Prime Minister Erdogan, but was vehemently opposed by Turkish nationalists on the grounds that the law granted too many rights to minority communities.” The Ecumenical Patriarch himself acknowledged in a recent interview that the AKP has shown goodwill on this issue. His All Holiness also said that the real obstacle is probably “the deep state” — a reference to Turkey’s Kemalist state establishment that considers itself above any elected government and democratic law.
III. EURACTIV - Eyebrows raised as Turk gets top European job
The election of a Turkish member of parliament as president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly (PACE) triggered nervous reactions from the Kurdish, Armenian and Cypriot sides, a round-up of the international press shows. On 25 January, the 318-member PACE elected Mevlüt Çavuşoglu as its new president at the opening of its plenary session in Strasbourg (25-29 January). Çavuşoglu is the first Turk to hold the office since Turkey's accession to the Council of Europe in August 1949. In his statement, Çavuşoglu emphasised his ambition to fight discrimination, fear and hatred. No matter how appeasing the statements, Çavuşoglu's election raised eyebrows, apparently due to his nationality. Leaders of the main pro-Kurdish party DTP questioned Çavuşoglu's suitability for the job, saying the ruling AK Party of which he is a founding member has violated the constitutional rights of the DTP's successor, the Peace and Democracy Party, by blocking its membership of parliamentary commissions. Also, Cypriot members of PACE signed a declaration expressing their strong concern over the election of Çavuşoglu. "This position is not aimed at Mr. Cavusoglu personally, but his country, Turkey. A country which for over 35 years has militarily occupied the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus, and demonstrates utter contempt to international law and order and the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots," the MPs from Cyprus state. As for Armenia, a country with which Turkey has a long-standing history of animosity stemming from the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during the First World War, the local press appears to have misquoted Cavusoglu, prompting MPs in Yerevan to ask for the suspension of Armenia's activities in PACE. Apparently, the national agency APA cited an interview from Cavusoglu conveying the message that he had presented biased views on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which opposes Armenia and Azebaijan, a traditional Muslim ally of Turkey.
IV. KATHIMERINI - FYROM edging closer to joining EU
The European Parliament yesterday boosted the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s (FYROM) hopes of joining the European Union just two days before face-to-face talks between Skopje and Athens. The Foreign Policy Committee of the European Parliament approved the amendments to FYROM’s progress report, clearing the way for Skopje to receive an accession date in March, when EU foreign ministers are due to hold their next summit. The European Parliament asked Athens and Skopje “to double their efforts at the highest possible level to reach a mutually acceptable solution.” FYROM’s progress report was approved by 76 Euro MPs, with five voting against and five abstaining. The figures suggest that few of the deputies share Greece’s concern about allowing FYROM to join the EU. MEPs gave their approval just 24 hours after FYROM’s Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki proposed steps to improve relations with Greece, which has threatened to block Skopje’s EU bid over the long-running name dispute between the two countries. Speaking in Slovenia on Tuesday, Milososki suggested that FYROM and Greece could open embassies on each other’s territory and that a new border crossing between the two countries be opened to facilitate trade and travel. “We have these initiatives and we want to stimulate Greece,” he said. “We want to make a step forward regarding the name issue.” Milososki is due to meet with Greece’s Alternate Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas tomorrow on the sidelines of a conference on Afghanistan in London. FYROM has been pushing for talks between the two countries at a prime ministerial level.
V. B92 - Priština getting nervous over ICJ
Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić says it is more than obvious that Priština is getting increasingly nervous. This is caused, by the expected result of the process before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The UN top court is considering whether the ethnic Albanian unilateral declaration of independence, made two years ago, was in accordance with international law. “The most important thing is to keep our composure and not react thoughtlessly to attempted provocation,” Jeremić said, commenting on the recent incidents when Serbs and high state officials in Kosovo were arrested and harassed in the province. According to him, what Serbia can do diplomatically is to protest strongly in a relevant international forum each time UNSCR 1244 is violated. The minister also said that, considering that the EU had made its position known explicitly, there is no danger of an attempted implementation of the International Civilian Office (ICO) plan to integrate northern Kosovo, “since KFOR is not behind it either. We will continue with our close cooperation with international organizations that operate in Kosovo in line with UN Security Council decisions. The International Civilian Office is not one of them,” said Jeremić. He added that Serbia is now “most likely only a few months away from the ICJ opinion” in the Kosovo case. “We have reason to be optimistic, and when the position has been announced, I think that a quality, a new reality will open up, in the political sense. I believe that after that, the number of countries that are recognizing Kosovo will not be increasing.” According to Jeremić, after the ICJ ruling, it will be “relatively easy” to prevent any possible application of Kosovo for membership in international organizations. “It will have become obvious that a solution acceptable to all sides must be found,” said the minister. Jeremić also stated that Serbia has the goal of using the court’s opinion, along with a degree of diplomatic effort, to achieve creating such circumstances where it will become obvious that there is no alternative to continued dialog.
VI. RIANOVOSTI - Hurdles remain in Russia-NATO cooperation
Italian Admiral Giampaolo di Paola, the current Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, met with General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff, in Brussels and announced after the meeting that Russia was going to help NATO in Afghanistan. Makarov and di Paola approved a framework agreement on Russia-NATO military cooperation. At their upcoming meeting, scheduled for May 6, 2010, the chiefs of general staffs plan to approve this document and a detailed program of bilateral cooperation. What format can this cooperation have, and how will it benefit both sides? Russia and NATO have many common interests, including counter-terrorist operations, control over the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against illicit drug trafficking, promoting navigation safety, etc. At the same time, Moscow and Brussels remain divided on some issues. Such disagreements primarily concern NATO's eastward expansion and the overall European security system. For instance, the sides have still failed to reach agreement on the Georgian issue, which remains a bone of contention. Rasmussen's visit to Moscow in December 2009 confirmed persisting Russia-NATO disagreements. The NATO Secretary General said the alliance would not meet Moscow halfway on the Georgian issue and would not stop discussions on the possible admission of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. At the same time, NATO needs Russian assistance in important spheres, including the Afghan conflict. Rasmussen called on Moscow to expand its involvement in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations in Afghanistan and to provide ISAF with helicopters, fuel and pilots. He also said Russia could undertake to train Afghan police officers on its territory. Moscow agreed to provide such assistance and to handle additional NATO transits via Russian territory. Russia will help the Afghan army to maintain its helicopter fleet mostly comprising Soviet/Russian helicopters. Russia-NATO relations will remain in an uncertain and neutral state if NATO leaders stick to their current strategy. This uncertainty will be determined by the fact that neither side wants direct confrontation or is capable of it. Consequently, various summits and seminars will remain the main format of Russia-NATO cooperation. The sides will exchange polite statements, without resolving any specific issues. Mutual arguments will sometimes give way to simulated humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. Expanded bilateral cooperation will be further complicated by NATO's extremely cumbersome bureaucratic bodies which have long taken over its command and staff departments and by the tough anti-Russian stance of many new NATO countries supported by some major members of the alliance. Nevertheless, Russia and NATO will strive to settle important issues. Consequently, Moscow must establish direct relations with NATO countries, primarily the most powerful members of the alliance. Russia's ties with Germany, France, Italy and now Turkey are particularly promising in this respect. Direct negotiations with these countries make it possible to effectively resolve a broader range of issues than talks with NATO's overly bureaucratic system. The development of relations between Moscow and Washington is another factor that will determine Russia-NATO relations in the next few years. In this connection, the new strategic arms reduction treaty (START), currently being discussed by Russian and U.S. diplomats, has great significance. Its clauses will largely determine the format of Russian-U.S. military relations and those between Moscow and NATO as a whole.
VII. WASHINGTONPOST - Serbia's new patriarch urges Christian dialogue
The new head of the Serbian Orthodox Church on Thursday urged dialogue to overcome long-standing divisions with Roman Catholics. Patriarch Irinej said that a 2013 anniversary important to Christians would be a "good opportunity ... to meet and talk." He added that "with God's help this (dialogue) would continue to overcome what had happened in history and take a new, Christian road." The year 2013 marks 1700 years since Roman emperor Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan to establish religious tolerance for Christians. Serbia's patriarch has suggested that the ceremony to mark the anniversary could be held in the Serbian city of Nis, emperor Constantine's birthplace, and include Pope Benedict XVI as well as key Orthodox Christian leaders. That would be the first ever visit by a pope to Serbia, a rare European country not visited by the Roman Catholic Pope. The Serbian Orthodox Church had opposed the visit in the past because of the schism between the two churches, but also over the Balkan wars of the 1990s, which pitted Serbs against Croats, who are mostly Roman Catholics. Irinej acknowledged that the war period "was not the right moment (for the papal visit) and we decided to postpone it for more peaceful times." He added, however, that no concrete arrangements for the visit have been made so far. The 80-year-old Irinej was elected last week to become the 45th Serbian patriarch. He is considered to be a moderate in the influential church which is viewed as hardline conservative. Irinej has retained firm opposition to the Western-backed opposition in Kosovo, the historic heartland of the Serbian church which split in 2008. He said Thursday that "Kosovo is soaked with Serbian blood" and "belongs to us."