Manos Hadjidakis and the "Waltz of the Lost Dreams"

The following text is about a music piece I really love. The original text was written in Greek, by the Greek blogger Yannis H. I just loved Yannis H.'s comment and I felt like translating in English, in order to share it with foreigners, who do not know about this music piece or about Manos Hadjidakis. My English is far from being perfect. For this reason, I strongly suggest that you should look for the original Greek text, in case you speak Greek.

Just one thing I would want to mention: I omitted the last paragraph of Yanni H’s post, I have added one sentence at the end of this post, and I didn’t paraphrase Elytis (which is what Yannis H did in his original post.) You see, I didn’t feel like paraphrasing Elytis…

Manos Hadjidakis and the "Waltz of the Lost Dreams"

Some people call him “Manos” – I can’t do that. If I am to approach him, I need the distance created by the use of his surname. He is not “my man”, even though he speaks to my heart. He is someone who has ascended to am other higher level, in order to include me. Hence, this guy cannot be called “Manos”. His name is “Hadjidakis”. Or perhaps, “Mr. Hadjidakis” – this would be even better. The more we keep our distance from those who express the deepest feelings of our hearts, the more we keep our distance from the geniuses of art, the more we understand our own calibre. And this way, we do not fall into the pit of considering all people as belonging to the same level.

I would like to speak about a music piece, which impressed since the very first moment I heard it long ago. And I am going to begin, by expressing my oldest question: Why “The Waltz of the Lost Dreams?” A mere carousel it is... An exceptional one, of course – tender to the point that it hurts you, arrestingly beautiful. But it is an endless musical phrase – and by saying “endless” I mean without an end, without a conclusion. It remains open. And that’s why it repeats itself again and again, as if it wants to complete itself. And this way it becomes endless with the other sense if this word: it becomes incessant.

The same phrase over and over again? But this would be boring, wouldn’t it? And here comes the other virtue of the musician’s art: the orchestration. The melody rises, flairs, rockets and then it falls again, landing on its feet, on the soft sound of the piano’s keys. (It is amazing: if you listen carefully, you will see that while the orchestra plays crescendo, the guitar is playing the same accords it was playing a while ago, accompanying the piano.) In tales (and carousels are such tales) there is no room for accuracy and logic. And if the “magician” wants the weak guitar to be heard together with the vigil orchestra, nobody will forbid him to do that; and to none will this sound peculiar.

And the piano (those magical fingers!): it is heard at the beginning of the piece, and then again it is heard when the melody “lands”, when the music piece is being dissolved to the components by which it was created. And in both cases, it sounds as if it was an other instrument. And what an instrument! It sounds like a barrel-organ!

Hadjidakis starts talking about “lost dreams” by taking us from a symbol which is very familiar to us and represents “what has been lost”: a barrel-organ. It has some extra features, but it is always the same monotonous and open melody, which is dominating throughout the whole music piece. A melody which never ends – there is always something that you owe to it; or it is the melody that owes to you…

But which are the elements, which brings to our minds the "Lost Dreams" and the unfulfilled wishes, together with the feeling of sorrow which comes with them? Is it just the barrel-organ, bearing the patina of “what is old and has been lost”, combined with this open, repetitive and endless melody? It seems that there is something more: it is the combination of the orchestration together with the emotion, which gives you this feeling. When the orchestra plays crescendo, the sorrow of the "unfulfilled wishes” becomes more intense, more imposing – it becomes almost epic. And when everything calms down again, it looks as if you are not thinking about it any more; although it is smouldering afflictively in your heart, just like the soft keys of the piano.

The 'carousel' fits well with this kind of music – actually it is not a kind of music at all, it is rather a musical accompaniment. All carousels, which are turning around within a miniature landscape, they have a small, repetitive music.

And, literally, a carousel’s journey is an impasse one: it consists of never-ending circles, which lead you to nowhere. You never “arrive” to a specific destination – there is just a moment, in which the music is lost just like that. (Yes, it does not “end”, it does not “close”. It is just lost.)

Which kid would ever say that a ride on the carousel was perfect? Which kid would ever say that his journey had a conclusion, that he has reached to the point he wanted? Which kid would ever say that he wouldn’t want one round more?

It is this puerility and this feeling of sorrow for our "unfulfilled wishes" that permeates this work – a feeling which is totally alien to our square everyday life. In this music piece, each round is given in a way which implies that it has no end; each turn encloses its own import – perhaps its own fantasy. And each fantasy lives till the end of the turn that encloses it. In fact, all these turns are desperately similar to each other. Is it perhaps the same monotonous sorrow of a lost dream? Or is it a sequence of lost dreams, all of which are leaving us the same bitter taste? It is in your hand to choose the explanation you prefer.

While we are listening to this music piece, the sound of the music takes us to a “personal carousel of our own”. We are turning round and round, and each round is different from each other; yet, also similar to each other. It is just the way things used to be in the past…

But we are also experiencing all these things through a waltz, which is an adult’s dance… For we are not kids any more – we are adults. We have tasted the “forbidden fruit”, we have left from the Heaven. We are adults, regardless of whether we are charmed by the sound of the music, regardless of whether we feel like kids just because of the emotions and the memories of the past. And indeed: this is the “Waltz of the Lost Dreams”. And it is for some people, who are still young, although they have grown up.

And by remembering the Puerile Paradise, do you taste actually this paradise for one more time? Or you just taste the Adulthood’s Hell? And what is the thing that prevails? The Dream? Or the loss of the Dream? The answer to this question is not an easy one – perhaps there is no answer at all.

Odysseas Elytis said: “From ‘what really is’ to ‘what might be’, you are crossing a bridge which takes you from Hell to Heaven. And what a bizarre thing: this Heaven is made with the same material, with which Hell is made as well. It is just the way these materials are laid out, which makes all the difference.”

Who knows? Perhaps growing older is merely the passing of this bridge to the opposite direction…

(This article was written for the version of the "Waltz of the Lost Dreams" which is found in the LP "30 Nocturnes". However, the original music piece was composed for the needs of the movie "Lost Dreams". There is also a third version, about which I cannot give any further information, since I do not know anything about it. Finally, in the aforementioned movie there is an other version of this music piece, bearing the title “A barrel-organ in the alley”. In that version the organ is distant at the beginning, it comes closer to you and then it stops by your side. It sounds as if there was a barrel-organ player, who has come to you, in order to ask for a dime.)


You can listen to it online...


The version of the LP "30 Nocturnes"


The original version


The third version


A barrel-organ in the alley

The first-born of the Earth

A couple of days ago, it happened for me to come upon a short story, which I liked a lot. It's title is "The first-born of the earth" and it was written by Stratis Mirivilis. I liked it that much, that I decided to translate it from Greek to English - although I know that my English is far from being good - just because I wanted to share it with other people.
The Holy Bible was the "source of inspiration" for this story. However, Stratis Mirivilis does not merely reproduce what is written in the Bible. This would have been pointless, after all. On the contrary, starting from Adam and Eve's Fall, he writes and "alternative version" of this story. An alternative version, which (as my nephew commented when he read it) is not only about love and hope, but also about wisdom and freedom; it is about the freedom of choice, about the freedom of being who you are. And it is about the joy of discovering the existence, and about discovering the unknown.

The first-born of the Earth

The days turned to weeks, weeks turned to months since Sabaoth got exasperated and expelled from the Garden of Eden the couple of the first humans ever created. New worlds He would create, old worlds He would destroy, for His infinite mind and His flaming heart wanted to be filled with the joy of creation. He wanted to forget both of these damned ones – He even pretended that He wasn’t thinking of them, that He didn’t care where they were and how they were doing. But His mind would always return to them. He was a father after all.
The heart of the Almerciful was heavy because of these two kids, although He wouldn’t let anyone notice that – even His angels.
One day He even left in the middle of a concert, which was being given in honour of Him. The sweetest-singing Cherubim of the skies had come first thing in the morning, with their harps and guitars, in order to praise Him, offering Him the Great Doxology. On the earth down below, the birds held their singing; the seas kept their waves and their hum; the rivers seized their waters; all of them were given to the sweet melody of the hymn. But despite this, He left in the middle of the concert and He went to the Garden of Eden, drawn by His secret woe.
It had been since then that He hadn’t walked under the tall leafage, among the strong trunks, which had been embraced by the ivies. He was walking, and His heart was heavy. He was walking in the autumnal nature, which had turned the leaves of the chestnut trees reddish, and had set golden fires on the candles of the elm trees. His sandals were making a fresh sough on the fallen leaves, which smelled heavily, giving off the wild scent of the humid forest. All the trees noticed Him, and began rustling happily. They were shaking their branches over His holy head, glorifying Him. The whole garden was filled with the whispering voices of the trees.
Archangel Michael was following Him, provost marshal and leader of the heavenly hosts. He was walking behind Him, keeping the appropriate distance, ready to receive any order from the Lord.
Sabaoth stopped before a trunk. It was an enormous walnut tree, whose leaves were scenting marvellously. On the soft bark, He read a large inscription, inscribed with a sharp flint stone: “Day 20 from the Creation of the World. Praised be thy name, Lord”. The letters had been grooved deeply; the tree’s juice had congealed in the grooves, giving to the letters a black colour; and everyone could read them very easily on the white trunk of the tree. At some points, the juices had run out from the grooves, and they had stood still like petrified tears. Sabaoth, lost in His thoughts, looked at these letters, and a little sigh lifted His silver beard from His chest. He reached His almighty hand out and He caressed the graven bark.
Then, He turned to the archangel, and, pretending He was indifferent, He said:
- What a beautiful tree, Michael! Strong and happy…
He replied obediently:
- For great and marvellous Thy works, Lord; in wisdom hast Thou made them all.
Sabaoth shrugged and He moved on. On an other trunk His eye caught an other inscription. This one was a more recent one. There were two letters, enfolding lovingly each other: “A.E.”
He couldn’t take it any more. He stopped abruptly, He turned to the archangel, and He said all of the sudden:
- Just tell me, Michael. Wasn’t that a great ungratefulness? Huh? Wasn’t it a great ungratefulness? How could they do this to Me? How could they treat Me like that? And it was all her fault, wasn’t it?
- Yes, Almerciful
At that moment, a fine lion appeared. It passed its enormous head among the trunks, it looked at them surprised, and it wagged the cascade of its golden mane magnificently. Sabaoth reached out His hand in order to fondle the lion. But the beast crinkled its muzzle viciously, it showed its teeth, and its eyes blazed with malevolence, like two pieces of burning coal. The archangel struck it with his flaming glaive. The lion roared dreadfully, and with a long leap it disappeared in the forest. Its angry cry made the leaves shiver, and it left behind it a murmur of fear among the leafage. It was as if the cold tempest’s breath had passed among the trees, and had stricken them.
- What is this supposed to mean? Sabaoth asked full of surprise. You had to strike it, Michael! In the past, it would come to Me, crawling around My feet, calm and good… It used to lick My hands…
- Yes, but everything has changed since then, Almighty. Since the day she left from here, everything started changing…
- I thought so.
- Yes. I guess that even if it was only her who had left from here, hunted by Your curse, it would be still enough for Eden to become what it has already become…
- How so? Tell me what has happened in here.
- Well… Together with her, gentleness, tenderness and charm left as well. You may have not noticed this, Almighty, because Your Majesty hasn’t stepped in here again since that dreadful day. But everything has been marred since that day. The animals are fighting each other. Blood is being spilled on and on. Murder and Death are living in here. And Fear as well, which had been something unknown till that day. The little deer gets into a funk by the eagle’s shadow and the beautiful tiger dips its face into the gashed flesh of the antelope. The flowers! They have become vicious, Lord. Even the rose, the flower of the sky. It has covered itself with hard nails and teeth, which pierce the flesh, cutting it, in order to drink blood.
Sabaoth wagged His holy head with sadness.
- You are right. She… In her childish beauty, she had been the charm and the calmness and the whole mirthfulness of My heart… She left and My Garden has become a wild place…
They started walking again, lost in their deep thoughts, and the silence was following their steps. Eventually, they got to the gate. It was the point, from where the archangel had sent them away that dreadful day. It had become weedy, covered with briars. They stopped. A serpent was heard, scared, slithering away in the wet grass.
- Those poor things, He whispered. Those poor things…
All the sorrow of the insulted love was shaking in His anger.
From the broad opening of the gate, His gaze spread all over the wide earth. It was a dry landscape, full of loose stones and thorns. The winter would freeze it, the summer would burn it. The curse of the Lord had passed over the ground and it had burned it like storm of fire. The thunders had slashed it with bottomless gorges. From the riven body of the earth burning sulphur was giving off fumes.
Far behind the wild mountains, there was a river, roaring furiously. The voice of its anger could reach the Garden of Eden. The vultures were squawking over the barren wasteland.
- Why is it roaring so terribly? Sabaoth asked. They must be hearing this…
They will be shivering in fright…
- It has been roaring like that since the day of your wrath.
- But I am not angry any more, Michael…
He continued listening to the water, which was falling onto the ground with a great noise. He raised his sad eyes and He looked again at the hostile wilderness. The landscape was filling His heart with sorrow.
He asked, and there was a little hesitation in His voice:
- Tell me… Has either of them been seen around since that day?
- In the first days, yes. The gate guards have reported me many times that they used to come back. They used be around here all the time. They used to come both of them together. Especially in the dusk, when the night was about to fall and the shadows were getting longer. They would come in here scared and tired; they would fall on their knees and they would reach out their hands imploringly towards the Garden; and they would be crying till the night would cover them. But later, they would appear less and less often, until one day they stopped coming. In the end I withdrew the gate guards, since they were of no use any more. And the gate got weedy, and it got closed by thorns and cacti.
- Ungrateful children. I created them in the sweetest hour of My love, and they have empoisoned My heart in return.
- …
- Tell Me, Michael.
- At your command, Lord.
- Tell Me, what if I bring them back?
- You are the fountain of mercy and love, Lord.
- You know, there has been some time that this idea is spinning on my mind. I have been thinking about forgiving them; erasing their sin; forgetting everything. I have been thinking what it would be like to see them in here again innocent and happy, chasing each other like little deers; to hear them singing their weird songs loudly, together with the birds; to see them adorning my altars with garlands made of roses…
The Almerciful smiled affectionately, imagining the return of the damned ones…
- Send to fetch them to Me, Michael.
The archangel whistled in his golden whistle and innumerable hasty wings rushed down from the heavens at once; the sun was shining on them, just the way it shines on a peacock’s plumage. It was a host of Seraphim. They stood over the archangel’s head, flapping their golden-green and blue wings. He gave them the order, and they rushed to the four corners of the earth, like a tornado of joy and colours. They rushed through the gate and they disappeared in the horizon with the speed of a lightning.
There didn’t pass much time, and – behold! – they came back, making the leaves undulating with their wings' thrusts. They laid Adam and Eve down, before Sabaoth, and then they winged again and they disappeared in the blue sky, like a bevy of exotic swallows.
Adam and Eve didn’t move. They remained in there, on their knees, with their heads bent to the ground. They were still scared because of their strange journey, and they wouldn’t dare to raise their eyes towards the Almerciful. They were wearing pelts of wild beasts, and Eve was clasping to her breast a pack wrapped in bear pelt.
Sabaoth was looking at them and His heart was filled with love.
- Look at them!, He said. Do you see them, Michael? They were about to start resembling the bears…
- We kneel before You and we are grateful to You, Father”, both of them said with a weak voice, full of emotions. They touched with their fingertips the edge of Lord’s tunic, and they kissed it with love.
- You spoiled kids, He murmured, and He caressed their heads.
He removed affectionately from Eve’s golden hair two dry chestnut leaves, and He said again:
- You silly… Ungrateful kids…
- At Your command, Father!, Adam said.
- ‘At Your command, Father!’ In other words, you want to know My will and My intentions, don’t you? Well, here you are… I have pitied you and I have called you back. The earth has completed a full round around the sun since the day of the sin. And all this time, My heart in My chest hasn’t stopped being embittered even for a single moment; for all the time I have been thinking of you, living with the burden of My curse; being burned by the sun and pierced by the cold wind, whereas your skin is as tender and sensitive as the magnolia's flower; being hunted by Death and Disease, not having any help at all; being attacked by the beasts whereas you are less armed even than the bees; being hungry and yet having to soften the frozen soil, so that earth would pity you and let you get a handful of wheat. You have embittered me greatly, for greatly I have loved you. And you will never be able to fully understand this. But I have made up My mind. I will lift the sin from you. I will give you Eden back.
He raised His hand in a blessing gesture, and He said:
- Let it be so!
And the miracle happened. The trees, which had dropped their leaves, were filled with new leafage and bloomed at once. Bindweeds wrapped themselves around the trees, landed with innumerable rosy bells. The air was filled with a joyful hum and golden pollen. The rose trees dropped their thorns and they were filled with flowers, and the birds, thousands of nightingales and cuckoos and skylarks, they found the endless spring of Eden and they started singing again. It was something marvellous. From every corner would come fragrant smells, noises, voices, and whistles of joy.
Sabaoth smiled. His eyes rejoiced at seeing this new spring. Only Adam and Eve were holding each other tightly, not raising their eyes from the ground.
Sabaoth stated ceremoniously:
- May this day – the day of forgiveness, the day of the come-back – be blessed. And let this day be considered as one of the Seven Days of Creation, for today I have created forgiveness. I am lifting the sin from you. I will make you again pure and innocent like birds. I will make you saints like my angels. I will make you again innocent, just the way you were before biting the Apple of the Sin and finding out that you had been naked.
But then something most unexpected happened.
Adam put his hand around Eve's weak shoulders, which were shaking because of her sobs, as if he was trying to protect her. He raised his head towards God and on his sunburned cheeks tears were running.
- Oh, Father! he said. You, who are so kind and compassionate to us, pity us! Don’t do that to us!
- But haven’t you got yet what I am telling you, God said, being puzzled. It seems that happiness has driven you out of your minds and you cannot understand. I am giving you Eden back, you silly kids. I will take you in again.
- No! Not that! Have mercy on us, Father! the two humans groaned in despair. If there is still any pity for us left in Your heart, let us go back, Almerciful. Don’t lift the sin from us, which has become the asset and wealth of our lives. Leave the knowledge of Good and Evil to us, which has become our bitter wisdom. Leave us our nakedness, which has delivered our bodies from their loneliness. Pardon us, Lord, for we have turned Your curse to a new Heaven. We have found our new Eden in love and creative work. Within the devious words of the Snake there was a new verity. The sin of our knowledge has risen us closer to you much more than the innocence of our ignorance, Lord. In our sorrowful struggle, we have used the Tree of the Sin, in order to get the sweetest fruit. Don’t take Love back from us, Lord; we are imploring You! For it is Love which fills the barren lands with nightingales, it shines like the sun in the cold days of the winter, it makes our hard bread tasting sweet, it turns to heroism our inability and to source of joy our weakness…
Sabaoth was looking the archangel, full of puzzlement.
- Yes, Lord, Eve said; and her voice spread tenderly among the leaves. Leave us Love and the New Eden we have planted through it…
- And what about Death, you foolish kids? You are disregarding Death, which is following your steps like a snake, since the day you left the Garden!
- With Love, we have defeated Death as well, Lord!, Adam said.
- What!, Sabaoth said. You have defeated Death!
Eve raised in her hands the little pack she had been holding tightly onto her bosom till that moment. The small rosy body of a little baby budged in the bear pelt. All the angels of the lost Heaven were smiling trough his face, and all the lost skies were shining in his blue eyes.
Eve reached out the baby towards Sabaoth; she raised her tearful eyes towards Him and she begged Him:
- Bless it, Father!
It was the first-born of the earth.

(from "The Blue Book" by Stratis Mirivilis, translated by Akestor)

On Pr. Putin's victory and what this signifies for the rest of the world

Introduction
Last Sunday Russians voted in general parliamentary elections, in which Pr. Putin achieved a landslide victory. This didn’t surprise anyone; everyone knew that “United Russia”, the party which placed Pr. Putin’s name at the head of its list, was going to win; and everyone knew that this victory would be a great one.

But what was the reaction of the West and of the western media? President Bush avoided offering congratulations to Pr. Putin, expressing his concerns about the results of the poll. The EU expressed its scepticism – if not its doubts – as well. The Western media attributed his victory to a considerable extent to the Russian media, which are said to be linked to the Kremlin. And all of them have joined their reservations with the accusations of the Russian Communist Party, whose leader said that the election had been "the toughest and least democratic" ever held in post-Soviet Russia.


Possible explanation for West's polemic against Pr. Putin and evaluation of it
But why all this polemic? Why does the West appear to be that much concerned? “Because all these accusations are grounded on real facts”, could anyone answer spontaneously. And it is true that the processes followed in the poll could enable a falsification of the results, in case someone wanted to do so.

However, there are a few annoying facts, which raise questions about the real intentions of all these, who say that they are "sceptical", as far as the results of the elections are concerned. For example, what about the first election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency of the USA? Shall we remember what happened with Florida’s results? Did any of the European countries hurry to express any concerns at all? Where was the “democratic sensitivity” of EU? On the other hand, what about Mr. Berlusconi? Owner of TV channels which broadcast on a national network in Italy, he has become twice Prime Minister of his country. Did the US administration express any reservations about the fairness of the results? I believe that these two examples show in a most obvious way that double standards are being used in here. And only this fact should be enough to raise questions about the real cause of the West’s reaction towards Pr. Putin’s victory.

But if the previous are enough to raise questions about the real motives of those whose “democratic strings” have been touched, the following is enough to raise questions about the fairness of the accusations themselves.

Let us examine the result of the elections. It is a fact that “United Russia” won around 64% of the votes. It is true that in the rest of the European countries such results are not very common. However, all opinion polls before 2 December were giving to “United Russia” a rate ranging between 62% and 67%. And in the end, the percentage “United Russia” got was within the aforementioned range. In my opinion, this proves that Pr. Putin neither had a reason to falsify the results, nor did he so. Because someone falsifies the results in order to get a rate higher than what he would normally get. In our case, Pr. Putin didn’t get a higher rate. Hence, I feel that these efforts to raise questions over the results, they simply misfire.


The real reasons of West's polemic against Pr. Putin
So, why this entire attempt to discredit Pr. Putin? Why all this polemic? My answer is straightforward: “Because he is a considerable obstacle to the aspiration of the West to world supremacy and he questions the US hegemony”.

And I am not exaggerating at all, when I am talking like that. Mr. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was very clear: “There is no such thing as the UN. There is only the international community, which can only be lead by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States”. Equally clear was Pr. Putin two months ago: “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.” To those who favour the idea that the use of force can be also legitimate when the decision is taken by either the NATO or the EU, his answer was equally clear: “We have different points of view... The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN.” The opposition between Pr. Putin’s policy and the objectives of the West (and in particular of the USA) is obvious.

That is exactly what bothers the West. Unlike his predecessor, who dragged Russia’s name in the mud, he is determined to follow an independent foreign policy. Because, let’s face it, today’s Russia is not Yeltsin’s faltering state. It has recovered to a considerable extent and it realises that it cannot remain a mere “satellite” of the West. And the credit is all due to Pr. Putin.

He used a low profile in order not to draw the attention of the US, which were dedicated to impose themselves on the rest of the world; and this way he bought time in order to achieve great changes. Aided by the circumstances – the increased need for energy on a global scale – he used the money which started coming into Russia in order to give a fresh impulse to the economy of his country – the very sector which really ensures power; and it seems that he has succeeded. For one more time, Russia is standing on its feet again.

However, this time things are not as they were before. Today’s Russia is not the old communistic USSR, which was trying to impose its ideology onto the others. On the contrary, it has abandoned ideology, imperial and any other great designs, in favour of pragmatism and common sense. And when Pr. Putin states that “it is necessary to make sure that international law has a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms” (a point of view, the moral basis of which cannot be denied) he exposes the US foreign policy. And that’s the problem in here. The war in Iraq has greatly damaged – if not completely ruined – the image of the USA. And what was in the past the advantage of US foreign policy, when US would appear to be the protectors of democracy, freedom and international law (although this is not that much close to the truth), now it has been lost.

And there is more. Europe is realising more and more that is has common interests with Russia. The co-operation between the EU and Russia on the field of energy becomes tight more and more; and this is happening although the economic regression that EU faces lately may raises fears that this may render Europe dependant on Russia as far as the energy supply is concerned. Needless to say that such scenarios are most worrying for the US; because on the one hand a co-operation on the field of energy may lead to a co-operation on the political field; and on the other hand such a co-operation on the field of energy does not serve the objectives of the US at all, which are trying to control the global economy by controlling the energy recourses.

That’s why the West, and especially the USA, is trying to discredit Pr. Putin’s victory, by presenting him as someone who is undemocratic. And this particular accusation has a very particular objective. Because, on the one hand we reserve for ourselves the right to be called “the democratic free world”; and on the other hand we present Pr. Putin as undemocratic – in other words, as being against democracy. Thus, with this sleight, we are trying to present Pr. Putin as a potential threat against the West. And this is just because he does not consent to the will of the West to dominate on all the others.


The message of the Russian ballot
But no matter what the West says, no matter how much it criticises the Russian President, Pr. Putin enjoys the confidence of the vast majority of the Russian people; and in contrast to this, it seems that the Russians do not trust much the rhetoric of the West. And this can be most readily seen in the message the Russian ballot sends. So, let us examine the results of the elections and let us attempt to decipher the message this poll sends.

A first stinking observation is that all the parties which were backed by the West, they have completely failed; none of them got more than 2%. A second observation is that of the four parties which have entered the Duma (i.e. the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia) only the Communist Party opposes Pr. Putin. The other three parties, which have won approximately the 80% of the votes, support the policy of the Russian President.

Bearing these in mind, we can see that the Russian people say in a most clear way two simple things: First, they support Pr. Putin’s policy. And this shouldn’t be a surprise, since thanks to his policy Russia has managed to recover to a considerable extent. Second, they do not want the West to interfere in their domestic issues. And this is the price the West pays for its lack of insight, since its policy has never been very friendly towards Russia – even after the Russia’s transition to the free market economy.


The need for a change in West's foreign policy. Suggestions for the future
Based on these facts, I think it would be wise for the West to think again about whether it should continue its efforts to destabilise Pr. Putin. Because the West shouldn’t examine only how to get rid of Pr. Putin, whose policy is an obstacle to its objective; it should also examine what will happen if Pr. Putin is removed. Whom do we prefer on the steer of Russia? Do we prefer the ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky? Or do we prefer the Communists?

So, what should be done from now on? I guess it would be a good thing, if the West starts to accepting reality and re-adjusting its policy according to it. Russia cannot always have as presidents people like Yeltsin; and Pr. Putin is far from being a “copy” of Pr. Yeltsin. And Russia itself has also changed: it is standing on its feet again. And this requires a re-examination of our policy towards Russia, and our foreign policy in general.

It is obvious that ways of thinking like the one expressed by Ambassador Bolton are not realistic any more. The unipolar model is not practicable any more. Therefore, we have no other choice but accepting the model of a multi-polar world. And we all must do our best in order for this model to work this time.

To this end, I believe that “Old Europe” (about which vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld used to talk with so much disdain) could be proven very useful. Because based on it own experience, it can propose a new way in global politics.

Just look into our history: For centuries the European countries have been fighting each other. Blood has been shed; human lives have been lost; countries have been devastated. And in the end, all of these countries have become weaker. Their pursuit for supremacy has rendered them weaker.

But this is not the case any more. The opposition has given its place to co-operation. The European Economic Community has already been transformed to a Union and it may end up as Confederation – or even a Federation – in the future. And in all these Formations are taking part not only countries who had been allies; they also participate countries like France and Germany, which have been fighting each other for centuries. And all the European countries, in this multi-polar Union, we are all working together, all of us sharing the same vision for a brighter peaceful future. I do not know, but it seems that the “Old Europe” has still enough to teach the rest of the world. What do you think?

Annapolis Conference: a ray of hope or not?

The Annapolis Conference for Middle East is over; and if we are to adopt without any question what Secretary Rice says, we should rejoice and celebrate, for the objective of the talks has been achieved. "The success of this meeting is really in the launch of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians for the establishment of a Palestinian state and therefore a two-state solution," she said. But how close is this statement to reality?

Furthermore, which should be the ultimate end of the U.S policy efforts as far as the Palestine issue is concerned? Should it be merely the creation of a Palestinian state or something more? And how does the Annapolis Conference serve this end? (If it does so).

It is obvious that the final end of the Conference shouldn't be merely the establishment of a Palestinian state. For example, if a Palestinian state is established, which – however – is in conflict with the Israeli state, should we be glad about it? Certainly not! Therefore, U.S. policy's objective should be to ensure a lasting peace, rather than just establishing a state for the Arabs of Palestine. And, as a consequence, the results of the Annapolis Conference should be evaluated in regard to this objective.

It is evident that a lasting peace requires a permanent solution to the Middle East issue. Nevertheless, it is also evident that this solution cannot be a fair one. Hence, we should rather seek for an acceptable solution. And this practically means compromising.

There are 5 main problems, which consist the core of the Middle East issue:

• the borders of the Israeli state
• the refugees
• water
• the status of the city of Jerusalem
• the security of Israel

But, in spite of the fact that these five problems are interwoven with each other, still they can be reduced to two issues: the territorial one, and the issue of Israel's security.

By making this reduction, the pursuit of a settlement becomes easier, since these two issues have a cause-and-effect relation. Arabs' aggression against Israel is the result of the territorial problem, which arose because of the establishment of the Israeli state, and because of the way this state was established. And of course, it will not stop for as long as the territorial issue remains unsolved. Because a war is not a purpose to itself, but a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent (“War is the continuation of politics through other means", von Clausewitz says.) And in this case, the political objective of the Arab hostility is a solution of the territorial issue, which will not be unilaterally dictated by Israel.

Bearing all these in mind, it is hard for me to share Secretary Rice's contentment, about the results of the Annapolis Conference. And I am saying so for two more reasons.

The first reason is related to the people who are to negotiate; I mean Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas. Because, even if we assume that they have the will to negotiate (and we shouldn't take for granted that both of them want to do so), still it is doubtful whether they have the power or the legitimation to do so.

Let’s begin with Mr. Olmert, whose position is far from being an envied one. Having become Prime minister by chance, he has been widely criticised since the unfortunate war he launched against Lebanon. His administration’s future is rather obscure, since he is the head of a ramshackle coalition government with the religious Far Right, which will certainly overrule him, if he attempts to make any real step towards a compromise with the Palestinians for the sake of a mutually acceptable solution. And as if these were not enough, it is possible for him to be indicted for scandals, depending on the results of the investigation, which is being run these days. (I guess that while he was in Annapolis, he was more concerned for the investigative report, rather than for the Conference itself.)

But if Mr. Olmert's position is difficult, Mr. Abbas' position is almost despairing. First, in the last Palestinian parliamentary election his party, Fatah, lost to the Islamic resistance movement Hamas (Hamas took 76 out of the 132 seats of the Parliament, whereas Fatah took only 43 of them); then, after forming a government which lacks legitimation, he suffered a second defeat – in the military field this time: he lost control over the Gaza stripe to Hamas. And although the West sees on Mr. Abbas a clement negotiator, his compatriots accuse him of being over-compliant. Which practically means that even if Mr. Abbas comes to the negotiations, and even if these negotiations reach to a final agreement, still this will be of little value; because if the terms of an agreement are not widely accepted (and Hamas has already dismissed the talks, saying that “Palestinians will not be bound by any decisions taken at this week's US-backed Middle East peace conference”), then no lasting peace will be secured.

But it is not only the negotiators that make me being sceptical about sharing Secretary Rice' contentment; It is also the whole process, which is supposed to lead to a final solution of the Palestine issue. I am talking about the so-called "Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East", which – I feel – is lacking common sense.

To be more exact, the Roadmap for Peace comprises three goal-driven phases: Phases II and III are related to the solution of the territorial issue and the establishment of a Palestinian state, whereas Phase I is related to ending the violence and terror, normalising the Palestinian life and building Palestinian Institutions. So far so good.

However, according to the Roadmap for Peace, in Phase I "Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." And although the demand for an end to violence is perfectly logical, it is not logical at all to ask the Palestinians "to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere"; because, as it has already been said, all this violence has a particular reason and a specific aim. By asking the Palestinians to consent to Roadmap’ Phase I, it is as if they are asked to relinquish their own fate to Israel's good will and generosity. They are asked to disarm, and in return they are given the obfuscated hope for an independent state. And, of course, this cannot be acceptable. Not to mention that such an attempt might lead to an intra-Palestinian civil war. For these reasons, the Roadmap for Peace cannot be an acceptable process for the seeking of a permanent solution.

So, as it has been shown, these who were invited to Annapolis Conference in order to represent the implicating parts, they do not have either the room to manoeuvre or the legitimation to negotiate. On the other hand, in this conference the US policy attempted to reactivate the Roadmap for Peace, which cannot be an acceptable basis for the talks. Hence, it is really hard for me to understand where Secretary Rice’s contentment is derived from.

I do not know. Perhaps some of you will think that I remind you of Cassandra. But do not forget: although Cassandra used to prophesise only doom and disaster, still, she was speaking the truth.

Welcome

Welcome people. Welcome all of you, and thank you for using some of your valuable time in order to check my blog.

There has been some time I have been thinking about creating a blog. And this is mostly because I like sharing with the others things my ideas or things that I like. Why I like doing this? I guess because this is the way people are: they love sharing with the others.

Of course, if anyone believes that something I have said is wrong, or if anyone feels like commenting anything I say, he/she is free to do so. Because this is the way we learn: by exchanging our ideas, trying to find out what the truth is. And for this reason, all your comments are most welcome.

For once more, I thank you for your time.