President Barack Obama is in a bind as a House committee prepares to vote on a resolution that would recognize the World War I-era killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide. While a White House candidate, then-Sen. Obama said he believed the killings were genocide. A congressional resolution to that effect could alienate Turkey, a NATO ally and traditional friend of the United States that is crucial to America's foreign policy goals. Past administrations have defeated similar resolutions through public cajoling about national security interests and with behind-the-scenes lobbying. So far, however, the Obama administration has taken no public position on the measure, set for a vote Thursday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Aides to senior lawmakers on the committee say there has been no pressure against the resolution from the White House. The administration was informed ahead of time that the committee would be scheduling the vote, according to Lynn Weil, spokeswoman for the committee's chairman, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif. Turkey long has made clear that the issue could affect relations with the U.S. In 2007, when the House Armed Services Committee passed such a resolution, Turkey recalled its ambassador, and U.S. officials feared the Turks might cut off American access to a Turkish air base essential to operations in Iraq. A positive vote by Berman's committee would send the resolution to the full House. The committee is strongly pro-Israel, and prospects for passage could be affected by rising tensions between Turkey and Israel, as well as Turkey's relatively warm relationship with Iran. In the past, Turkey and Israel had friendlier relations, and Israel had quietly lobbied against the resolution. For decades, Armenian-American groups have sought congressional affirmation of the killings as genocide. Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, an event widely viewed by scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, saying the toll has been inflated and those killed were victims of civil war and unrest. This year, some Armenian groups and lawmakers are expressing optimism on the resolution's prospects, noting that Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton all supported recognition when they served in the Senate. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who introduced the resolution for consideration, said he sees more favorable conditions than in 2007. In April, Obama broke a campaign promise to brand the killings genocide in an annual White House statement on the day marking Armenian remembrance.
Alternate Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas on Friday repeated Athens’ desire to improve relations with neighbouring Turkey, reiterating support for Turkey’s prospects of becoming a full member of the European Union once it has met the terms and requirements for entry. Droutsas was speaking at a conference entitled “Greece-Turkey in the 21st Century”, organised by the Centre for Progressive Policy Studies, which was established by former minister Yiannos Papantoniou under the aegis of the Greek foreign ministry. “We are exploring ways to enhance cooperation with Turkey, finding and creating opportunities to improve Greek and Turkish relations for the benefit of both countries,” Droutsas said, stressing Athens’s support for the reforms that will allow Turkey to become a full member of the EU. He also pointed out that this would be a difficult and painful process for the neighbouring country: “The Turkey that finally joins the EU will not be the Turkey of today, or that of the past. It will be a changed Turkey,” he emphasised, underlining that Greece would support this effort, both politically and practically, provided that Ankara normalised its relations with Cyprus in the direction of a viable, fair and European solution to the Cyprus issue, without occupation troops. He also stressed the need for effective reforms for democratic modernisation within the country and the need for Turkey to fulfil obligations toward its Greek minority and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Droutsas warned against “thoughtless behaviour, incompatible with international law” that would undermine Turkey’s efforts in this direction, calling for the creation of a centre of power and stability in the region. The conference was opened by the centre’s chairman, Yiannos Papantoniou, who said its goal was not to rehash the past and highlight the differences existing between the two sides, which were in any case not overlooked, but to explore the possibilities for improving bilateral relations.
French FM Bernard Kouchner is in Belgrade, where he has met with President Boris Tadić, and will also talk with Deputy PM Božidar Đelić, and FM Vuk Jeremić. Tadić and Kouchner discussed the issue of bilateral relations, continuation of Serbia's European integration and Kosovo and Metohija, the president's cabinet released in a statement. "President Tadić underlined that France strongly supports Serbia's membership in the European Union,", the statement reads. The collocutors also agreed that no additional conditions will be imposed on Serbia regarding its EU membership. According to this, Tadić said that Serbia expects that the opinion of the International Court of Justice (on Kosovo independence) will pave the way for the reaching of a sustainable and compromise solution for Kosovo. The negotiations on the agreement on strategic partnership between France and Serbia have been successfully completed and the document will be signed during a future visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Serbia. Kouchner said that France fully supports Serbia’s European integration process, and that it will support all further initiatives and activities that Serbia will be going through in this process.
President Dmitry Medvedev is on a 3-day trip to Paris, where he will meet with his counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, to discuss pressing security issues, including Iran and European defense. In October 2008, Dmitry Medvedev pleaded Russia’s case for a sweeping change to the way Europe defends its territory. Speaking at the World Policy Conference in Evian, the Russian president, making reference to the just-finished Georgian conflict, introduced his idea for convening a new conference on security. “Recent events in the Caucasus have demonstrated that it is impossible to appease or contain an aggressor based on bloc approaches,” Medvedev said, in obvious reference to NATO, which Moscow believes is doing more to threaten the peace in Europe than to ensuring it. “Irresponsible adventurous actions by the ruling regime of a small country (Georgia in this particular case) are capable of destabilizing the situation in the world.” Medvedev then asked the rhetorical question, which echoed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s no-holds-barred Munich speech of the year before: “Is this not proof that an international security system based on unipolarity no longer works?” The Russian president will certainly enjoy a sympathetic ear to such sentiments when he sits down in the Elysee Palace with French President Nikolas Sarkozy, who is also fond of delivering stern lectures over American “hyper power.” France has added to the merriment of the Year of Russia celebrations taking place across the country by its willingness to sell up to four sophisticated Mistral-class warships at about $700 million dollars apiece to Russia. The deal, which Medvedev is expected to sign into force during his visit, will represent the first major military sale by a NATO member to Russia, significantly beefing up the Russian Navy's capabilities. This sale, however, has raised some eyebrows across the Atlantic. During his trip to Paris in early February, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed his concerns to President Sarkozy about the sale. The French president defended the deal in his meetings with Gates, reported RIA Novosti, arguing that Russia is a partner. “One cannot expect Russia to behave as a partner if we don't treat it as one,” Sarkozy was quoted as saying. The deal, which will certainly provide a nice boost to the French economy, also suggests that Paris is sympathetic to Moscow’s complaints over NATO’s eastward slide. Meanwhile, the French Ambassador to Russia Jean de Gliniasty stressed that France was open to military-technical cooperation with Russia. “Russia is a partner for us,” de Gliniasty told Interfax. “This being so, no taboos or bans exist in matters of military-technical cooperation.”
Set a group of plugged-in conservatives to talking presidential politics, and you’ll get the same complaints about the 2012 field. Mitt Romney? He couldn’t make the voters like him last time ... Sarah Palin? She’d lose 47 states ... Mike Huckabee? Better as a talk-show host ... Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, David Petraeus? Too blah, too extreme, too green, and stop dreaming ... But murmur the name Mitch Daniels, and everyone perks up a bit. Would he win? Maybe not. But he’d be the best president of any of them ... “I’ve never seen a president of the United States when I look in the mirror,” Daniels remarked last week, after officially inching the door ajar for 2012. During the fat years of the mid-2000s, while most governors went on spending sprees, he was trimming Indiana’s payroll, slowing the state government’s growth, and turning a $800 million deficit into a consistent surplus. Now that times are hard, his fiscal rigor is paying off: the state’s projected budget shortfall for 2011, as a percentage of the budget, is the third-lowest in the country. But Daniels hasn’t just been a Dr. No on policy. His “Healthy Indiana” plan, which offers catastrophic coverage to low-income residents, aspires to eventually cover 130,000 people, about a third of the state’s long-term uninsured. He’s pushed targeted investments in kindergarten programs, the police force and the child welfare office. And he’s been a pragmatic free-marketeer, rather than a strict ideologue. His controversial decision to lease the Indiana toll road reaped $3.8 billion for the state. But when an attempt to outsource welfare enrollment went awry, Daniels yanked the system back into the public sector. Unlike the politicians who spoke at CPAC, Daniels eschewed triumphalism about conservatism’s prospects. “I think a lot of Republicans are over-reading all of this,” he said. “They’re a little ahead of themselves, a little too giddy.” What his party still needs, and doesn’t have he said, are the answers to “the ‘what’ question — what are we about, what are our answers to the obvious problems the nation has?” Unlike the Republicans at the health care summit, he balanced criticisms of Obamacare with candor about the problem of the uninsured. “This is a very real issue, and we were determined to have a constructive approach to it — but one that would be affordable.” Healthy Indiana, he went on, is “incredibly popular with the people who are a part of it. I get tearful hugs from people who just want to tell me that it’s brought them peace of mind.” And unlike both CPAC-goers and his party’s leadership, Daniels was blunt about the challenges of deficit reduction. “There’s been some very healthy hell-raising going on in the country,” he said of the Tea Parties. “But to my knowledge, nobody’s gotten up in front of those rallies and explained what’s going to have to happen.” His ideal approach to the deficit would look like Paul Ryan’s fiscal roadmap, all spending restraint and no new taxes. But one way or another, deficit reduction “has to be done” — even if “you have to take the second- or third-best method.” All this honesty might evaporate on the campaign trail. And if it didn’t, would Daniels have a prayer? He’s admired by elites, but unknown at the grass-roots level. He’s a social conservative, and his gubernatorial campaigns have played the populist card successfully — but he lacks the built-in constituencies of other candidates. For a Daniels candidacy to catch fire, what’s left of the Republican establishment, currently (if reluctantly) coalescing around Mitt Romney, would have to decide that he’s the better pick. That would mean gambling that the best way to defeat the most charismatic president of modern times is to nominate a balding, wonky Midwesterner who reminds voters of their accountant. Stranger things have happened.
An exhibition of the Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany, in cooperation with the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum / Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Mainz, 26 February – 13 June 2010. Antiquity has left its mark on Europe. In which way this happened clearly distinguishes Western from Eastern Europe. The upheavals of the Migration Period with the subsequent foundation of the barbarian kingdoms largely brought the development of the Mediterranean civilisation to a standstill in the Roman West. It was the church that managed the inheritance of the Greeks and Romans. Both the Carolingeans and agents of the powerful 14th century Renaissance consciously reached back to the time of Constantine the Great and carried the achievements of Antiquity forward. The situation in the East was different: In Constantinople, the Greco-Roman world in its Christian version remained vibrant for centuries. The members of ruling circles regarded themselves as the heirs of Greece and Rome; they were conscious of the ancient past and could draw from it. Naturally, over the course of centuries adaptations were made to meet new conditions as they arose. Almost parallel to the rise of the Ottonian kings, Byzantium became a medieval state. Yet, substantial elements of Roman civilisation endured: The literary and scientific inheritance of Rome was preserved in scholarly circles and monastic scriptoria; the Empire likewise remained urban and centralised in its structure. Even in difficult periods of Byzantine history, the uniform system of taxation and finance continued to function and interregional trade ensured the supply for the cities. High-quality goods like silk textiles and masterful enamelled works were appreciated internationally. The contribution of the Byzantine Empire to modern Europe is far more important than we are aware of. Because Constantinople resisted Arab expansion, the medieval West could continue developing. The christianisation of all of Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the Balkan countries, Ukraine and Russia was conducted by Byzantium; Cyrillic script was developed by Byzantine missionaries. The European legal system is based on the Corpus iuris civilis promulgated in Byzantium under the emperor Justinian I. The Italian Renaissance received substantial impulses from Byzantine erudition, not least from the classical Byzantine painting. Even Turkish culture is likewise partly based on Byzantine antecedents: for example, the typical architecture of the mosques developed from the Byzantine domed churches. The exhibition will make use of magnificent and historically meaningful exhibits and important artefacts from collections and archaeological excavations to shed light on many aspects of the history, archaeology and art of the Byzantine Empire. It will offer an overview of the “Byzantine Millenium” (from the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great in 324 A.D. to the conquest by the Ottomans in 1453), but will concentrate above all on the prospering of the Empire from the time of Justinian I (527–565 A.D.) until the plundering of Constantinople by western crusaders in 1204. The main questions of the Byzantine state, Byzantine art and culture, society, economy, the Byzantine military, as well as daily life, etc., are to be discussed on the basis of “scenes”, by means of which these themes can be made highly accessible.
How often do we hear someone say, "Well, take it easy," or "Don't work too hard." We have grown accustomed to the idea that life should be easy, that we have every right to enjoy ourselves, ironically, it is this pervasive attitude of 'taking it easy' that creates such difficulties for us as Christians. The American way is "the good life." Christ, however, has called us to the narrow path. "Take up thy cross and follow Me," the Saviour commands. He also tells us, "In this world ye shall have tribulation..." and "the servant is not greater than his Master. If they persecute Me, they will persecute you." How many times we have heard these words from the Gospel. And yet, we prefer to grumble when things don't go our way. We seek compliments and recognition. We spend our life creating a comfortable niche for ourselves and resent the intrusion of others. We try to isolate ourselves from pain and sorrow. Even spiritually, we would sooner sleep than think about struggling for the Kingdom of Heaven and taking it by force as it must be. And where does our complacency show most of all? In our attitude towards our neighbor. How little we care to exert ourselves for the sake of someone else. But how else do we expect to show our love for Christ? We have no excuse. The Gospel states very clearly the two commandments on which "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:40). Here we read: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Many times we simply throw up our hands: "I admit that I don't love God or my neighbor as I should. That's just the way it is, and until love comes into my heart, I can't do anything about it," As if love were bestowed as an automatic virtue. We must try to reverse this attitude. Even without any feeling of love, let us make an effort to reach out to our neighbor, to make even a small gesture of concern. If we struggle to take this first step, we shall, with God's help, gradually grow in love. If we wish to please the Lord, our efforts must always be made for His sake--and not because we hope others will think well of us or return us a favor. St. Seraphim of Sarov teaches that we benefit from good deeds only if they are done in the name of the Lord. We should know that of ourselves we can do nothing good. We are all sinners and have no good in us apart from God. We have, therefore, no reason to be proud of ourselves when we do accomplish something good. In the Gospel we read: "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). By clinging to the Lord, and by listening to what the Church, the priest and the Gospel teaches, we can avoid many fails into pride. Here again we are surrounded by a worldly attitude: pride is considered to be a virtue. How many have said, "You should be proud of yourself!" If we wish to follow the narrow path, however, we must constantly struggle against pride, for the Holy Fathers teach that pride is at the root of all sin. Through pride we lose sight of the fact that the Lord created the whole universe; He gave us life and sustains it. Without Him we are but dust and ashes. We forget this. We look at nature and do not glorify its Creator. We rejoice not in the Lord, but in ourselves. The narrow way is difficult, and it can be very lonely. Nevertheless, we can find consolation in knowing that Christ has gone before us. Even His closest disciples abandoned Him in His time of need; they fell asleep when He asked them to keep vigil and pray with Him in the Garden of Gethsemane; they fled when He was crucified. And in the agony of the last hour, Christ cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Mark 15:3l) Truly, Christ suffered alone. If we earnestly wish to follow Him, we all must be willing to walk this narrow path. There will be times of loneliness, but however we feel, we should take courage in knowing that our guardian angel and the Lord will always be with us, as He promised. At times we may feel that the way is impossibly narrow, that the Lord is demanding too much from us. Here we have only to look at the example of Job in the Old Testament. By the Lord's allowance, the Evil One stripped Job bare of everything: his possessions, his family, his reputation, his health. After enduring all of this, Job did not curse or complain, but in longsuffering and patience he preserved his soul, saying, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.' For such an attitude, the Lord restored to Job his earthly wealth and crowned him with eternal glory. The Old Testament gives us another example of unmurmuring acceptance of God's will in Abraham' readiness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac. What God did not require of men, He did Himself in the sacrifice of His Only-begotten Son. Thus, we can tread the narrow path more easily, knowing that Christ has "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Is, 53:4). The Lord is working His will with each of us. If we are going through hard times now. we must follow the path a little farther, a little higher, for there awaits us tile outstretched hand of God to help us along our way. He is only waiting for us to make that extra effort, that extra step to seize the Kingdom of Heaven, for this Kingdom , just needs be taken by force. As difficult as this may, seem, it is not impossible, for the Kingdom of Heaven lies within our own hearts. We can be overcome by ail manner of difficulties, we can be persecuted and experience great trials, and yet within our hearts we can possess that great treasure, that peace that passes all understanding, which is obtained by following Christ's narrow path. May we not be fainthearted. May we resolve to struggle just a little harder. Then, putting all our trust in the Lord, acknowledging the Theotokos as our mother and Jesus Christ as our Saviour, we shall, with the help of the Church and the Holy Mysteries, persevere in our spiritual journey and find at last the peace and rest which we all long for deep in our hearts.