.png)
.
Ha már polgári engedetlenség és ha már versek, akkor a kettőt összekötve-felfokozva egy kis Neruda Somlyó fordításában, a "Nemzeti Csúcs" alkalmából. A tulajdon- és földrajzi nevek ad libitum behelyettesíthetők/ frissíthetők. Különösen ajánlott fennhangon olvasása az indulat rögzítéséhez s a hevület szítására.
...Az én hazámban a gyalázat elnököl.
González Videla, a patkány egyre rázza
rühes irhájából a szutyokkal kevert vért
eladott szép hazámra. Minden nap, minden áldott
nap jobban markolássza a rablott pénzt zsebében,
s csak az a gondja, holnap földet fog-e eladni
vagy inkább vért.
Mert ezt is, azt is árulta jócskán.
Fölmászott, mint a patkány, a nép vállára, s onnan,
szaggatva e hazának megszentelt lobogóját,
csóválja pusztulást árasztó ronda farkát,
így szólva az urakhoz, a mély chilei bányák
külföldi báróihoz: "Igyátok ki e népnek
minden csepp vérét, én itt a gyötrelem
helytartója vagyok.
"Szánalmas egy pojáca,
a majom és a patkány korcs keveréke, melynek
farkincáját a Wall Street keni arany kenőccsel,
nem múlhat az idő úgy, hogy le ne bukj a fáról
s közismert szemetévé ne légy a kárhozatnak,
melyet még eltaposni is utálnak az utcán.
Így volt igaz. Chilében árulás ült a trónon.
Egy áruló otthagyta nevét történelmünkön.
Egy Judás, ki halálfej-fogait villogtatva
testvéremet eladta,
megmérgezte hazámat,
haláltábort emelt és letépte csillagunkat,
egy makulátlan zászló szűz színeit leköpte.
Gabriel González Videla. Itt hagyom a nevét, hogy
mikorra az idő majd letörli már e szégyent,
és mikorra hazám majd már megtisztítja arcát
és az megint ragyogni fog a hótól és búzától,
akkor azok, kik egykor hagyatékom keresnék,
titkon izzó parázsként, mit e sorokba rejtek,
az áruló nevét is megtudják, ki halálos
serlegét hozta, melyet népem ellök magától.
Népem, én drága népem, emeld magasba sorsod!
Vesd szét a börtönt, döntsd le a falat, mely eléd állt!
Taposd el ronda útját a magos Palotában
hadonászó patkánynak: tűzd fel magasra lándzsád,
s ott fönn a hajnalégen hadd gyúljon ki haragvó
csillagod, beragyogva amerikai földünk.
(A vers aktualizálásának egyetlen problémája, hogy minálunk annyi név helyettesíthető be, hogy az már szétfeszíti a vers szerkezetét. De azért csak próbálkozzunk bátran. Az elnök hármas neve pl. 3 családnévvel is helyettesíthető.)
T
-
2008. október 18., szombat
Két vers Volka-krov-tól
.
Farkas
Mosolyától felkel a Hold
Merész, és gyors, ha nyomot keres
Kutyának, vadnak nyugta nincs,
de van olyan, aki szereti ezt-
Aki nem füvet legel, nincs rajta bilincs
s nem szolgál hamis énekest.
Ahhoz száll hangja, azokat hívja.
'Az ember szava hazug, s léha,
hallgass inkább rám!' - dalolja néha.
De vigyázz vele jól- harapni se rest...
Akár harcol,
akár nyifogva játszani kezd.
2008 okt. 6.
Reggelig
Itt táncolnak ők, köztük ím, itt vagy te is-
tőled búcsút vennék, de közülük ki nyújtja majd karját?
Kivel múlatom az időt reggelig?
Leginkább azzal telik majd, hogy titeket nézlek szótlan,
ezüstöm elfogy a borra,
s kardom elemelik.
2008 okt. 2.
Volka-krov
Farkas
Mosolyától felkel a Hold
Merész, és gyors, ha nyomot keres
Kutyának, vadnak nyugta nincs,
de van olyan, aki szereti ezt-
Aki nem füvet legel, nincs rajta bilincs
s nem szolgál hamis énekest.
Ahhoz száll hangja, azokat hívja.
'Az ember szava hazug, s léha,
hallgass inkább rám!' - dalolja néha.
De vigyázz vele jól- harapni se rest...
Akár harcol,
akár nyifogva játszani kezd.
2008 okt. 6.
Reggelig
Itt táncolnak ők, köztük ím, itt vagy te is-
tőled búcsút vennék, de közülük ki nyújtja majd karját?
Kivel múlatom az időt reggelig?
Leginkább azzal telik majd, hogy titeket nézlek szótlan,
ezüstöm elfogy a borra,
s kardom elemelik.
2008 okt. 2.
Volka-krov
Sir Richard Francis Burton
.
Jelenleg a korlatolt kispolgárok despotizmusa alatt élünk, akik mindent megbocsátanak
kivéve a felsőbbrendűséget.
Actualmente vivimos bajo el despotismo de los obtusos pequeños burgueses, quienes lo perdonan todo, salvo la superioridad.
Richard Francis Burton
Le capitaine Sir Richard Francis Burton, KCMG, né le 19 mars 1821 à Torquay, mort le 20 octobre 1890 à Trieste, est un érudit et polymathe britannique. Il fut tour à tour officier militaire, escrimeur, explorateur, écrivain et poète, traducteur, linguiste, orientaliste, maître soufi, ethnologue, hypnotiseur, diplomate et expérimentateur passionné de la plupart des perversions humaines.Personnage flamboyant, il mena une vie romanesque et voyagea inlassablement dans tous les continents. Polyglotte extraordinaire, il connaissait 29 langues et 11 dialectes et maîtrisant l'arabe, fut l'un des premiers occidentaux à atteindre la Mecque, déguisé en pèlerin. Il en rapporta notamment des croquis et des mesures de la Ka'ba.Au cours de sa carrière militaire et diplomatique, il servit d'abord en Inde en qualité de Capitaine de l'armée de la Compagnie anglaise des Indes orientales, puis brièvement durant la Guerre de Crimée. Il dirigea ensuite l'expédition de la Société Royale de Géographie qui devait aboutir à la découverte du lac Tanganyika en 1858. Il fut plus tard consul de Grande-Bretagne à Fernando Po de 1861 à 1864, à Santos de 1865 à 1869, à Damas de 1869 à 1871 et enfin à Trieste de 1871 jusqu'à sa mort survenue en 1890.En plus de ses fonctions officielles, il fut l'auteur de quantité de livres et articles consacrés aux sujets les plus divers: voyages, escrime et ethnographie. On lui doit notamment la première traduction non expurgée des Mille et Une Nuits et du Kâmasûtra. Membre de la Royal Geographical Society, cofondateur de l'Anthropological Society of London, il fut fait chevalier de Ordre de Saint-Michel et Saint-Georges en 1886.
Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton KCMG FRGS (19 March 1821 – 20 October 1890) was an English explorer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, ethnologist, linguist, poet, hypnotist, fencer and diplomat. He was known for his travels and explorations within Asia and Africa as well as his extraordinary knowledge of languages and cultures. According to one count, he spoke 29 European, Asian, and African languages.
Burton's best-known achievements include traveling in disguise to Mecca, making an unexpurgated translation of The Book of One Thousand Nights and A Night (the collection is more commonly called The Arabian Nights in English because of Andrew Lang's abridgment) and the Kama Sutra and journeying with John Hanning Speke as the first white men guided by the redoubtable Sidi Mubarak Bombay to discover (for himself and his contemporaries) the Great Lakes of Africa in search of the source of the Nile. He was a prolific author and wrote numerous books and scholarly articles about subjects including travel, fencing and ethnography.He was a captain in the army of the East India Company serving in India (and later, briefly, in the Crimean War). Following this he was engaged by the Royal Geographical Society to explore the east coast of Africa and led an expedition guided by the locals which discovered Lake Tanganyika. In later life he served as British consul in Fernando Po, Damascus and, finally, Trieste. He was a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and was awarded a knighthood (KCMG) in 1886.
2008. október 17., péntek
Level nekem...
Nem szokasom, az engem dicsero leveleket kozzetenni. Max. a hozzaszolaskent erkezoket. Most azonban ugy erzem alabbi level tartalma, nem csak ram tartozik.
Koszonet Kepes Andrisnak is utolag, a sokadszori lehetosegert, hogy elmonhattam amit gondolok...
Van ertelme. Ime a bizonyitek...
E.
Kedves Eduardo!
Elnézést amiért ismeretlenül írok, de van amikor a "lélektől lélekig" fontosabb az "illendőségnél" (az általános idegenségnél és apátiánál)! S főként van amikor az ember úgy érzi kapott valamit, amit igenis meg kell köszönnie! (Mert aki nekem adott, az igenis kapjon vissza belőle valamit, legalább egy visszajelzést, "hogy vannak itt, s te nem vagy idegen"! Még akkor is, ha nem direkte engem célzott, de máskülönben meg mért is ne célzott volna többek közt engem is, ha nálam talált? Hisz ami talált, az a célzott - nem igaz?) Na szóval: nagyon boldog vagyok, hogy a Kepes-műsorból megismerhettem, azaz pontosabban a közöset vagy ismerőset felismerve megérezhettem kicsoda Rózsa-Flores Eduardo! Azóta sokmindent olvastam is Tőled, aminek szintén nagyon örülök! Tehát amiért "tollat ragadtam": köszönöm az idealizmusod, a katartikus tisztaságod, az egyenességed és nyíltságod, a bátorságod és a jellemességed, az Embert, aki vagy, akivé tetted magad! (Legszívesebben mindent nagybetűvel írtam volna, de az ugye germanizmus, tehát pfuj, használjuk csak jól a nyelvünket!)
Köszönöm az Általad nyújtott példát, ami megerősít, a Benned fellelt Másikat, aki megment a tébolyultságnak az idealizmus magányára rákövetkező csapdájából! Amit Te sokakért tettél, szenvedtél, azt most én úgy érzem, meg kell Neked köszönnöm azon sokak nevében, még ha nem is kértek fel, de vindikálom magamnak a jogot a hála természetéből következően!
Minden áldozatod megköszönve kívánom, hogy választott hited s az idő betelése- múlása hozzon szenvedéseidre enyhülést, sebeidre gyógyírt!
Allah akbar! Viva la Revolución!
Testvéri szeretettel:
Terezita
(P.S.-ként írhatnám, hogy "utálom amikor nem ismernek meg azok, akiket ismerek, pláne ha a TV-ből", de erre Te azt mondhatnád Kafkával, hogy "milyen jó volt, amikor még először bemutatkoztam és csak azután ismertek meg", dehát végül is Te bemutatkoztál a TV-ben és ebből ismertelek meg, mindazonáltal mindezt úgy írom, hogy nem írom! Így csak Szabó Lőrinc Újsághírben a végtelen-jére utalok magyarázó ui.-ként.)
Koszonet Kepes Andrisnak is utolag, a sokadszori lehetosegert, hogy elmonhattam amit gondolok...
Van ertelme. Ime a bizonyitek...
E.
Kedves Eduardo!
Elnézést amiért ismeretlenül írok, de van amikor a "lélektől lélekig" fontosabb az "illendőségnél" (az általános idegenségnél és apátiánál)! S főként van amikor az ember úgy érzi kapott valamit, amit igenis meg kell köszönnie! (Mert aki nekem adott, az igenis kapjon vissza belőle valamit, legalább egy visszajelzést, "hogy vannak itt, s te nem vagy idegen"! Még akkor is, ha nem direkte engem célzott, de máskülönben meg mért is ne célzott volna többek közt engem is, ha nálam talált? Hisz ami talált, az a célzott - nem igaz?) Na szóval: nagyon boldog vagyok, hogy a Kepes-műsorból megismerhettem, azaz pontosabban a közöset vagy ismerőset felismerve megérezhettem kicsoda Rózsa-Flores Eduardo! Azóta sokmindent olvastam is Tőled, aminek szintén nagyon örülök! Tehát amiért "tollat ragadtam": köszönöm az idealizmusod, a katartikus tisztaságod, az egyenességed és nyíltságod, a bátorságod és a jellemességed, az Embert, aki vagy, akivé tetted magad! (Legszívesebben mindent nagybetűvel írtam volna, de az ugye germanizmus, tehát pfuj, használjuk csak jól a nyelvünket!)
Köszönöm az Általad nyújtott példát, ami megerősít, a Benned fellelt Másikat, aki megment a tébolyultságnak az idealizmus magányára rákövetkező csapdájából! Amit Te sokakért tettél, szenvedtél, azt most én úgy érzem, meg kell Neked köszönnöm azon sokak nevében, még ha nem is kértek fel, de vindikálom magamnak a jogot a hála természetéből következően!
Minden áldozatod megköszönve kívánom, hogy választott hited s az idő betelése- múlása hozzon szenvedéseidre enyhülést, sebeidre gyógyírt!
Allah akbar! Viva la Revolución!
Testvéri szeretettel:
Terezita
(P.S.-ként írhatnám, hogy "utálom amikor nem ismernek meg azok, akiket ismerek, pláne ha a TV-ből", de erre Te azt mondhatnád Kafkával, hogy "milyen jó volt, amikor még először bemutatkoztam és csak azután ismertek meg", dehát végül is Te bemutatkoztál a TV-ben és ebből ismertelek meg, mindazonáltal mindezt úgy írom, hogy nem írom! Így csak Szabó Lőrinc Újsághírben a végtelen-jére utalok magyarázó ui.-ként.)
Haider: The Death of a Populist
.
Jörg Haider , the best known Austrian politician, was killed in a car crash on October 11. His death marks the end of a colorful career untypical for a"far-Right" figure. Armani-clad fitness fanatic, Arnold Schwarzenegger's palwith a permanent tan, Haider cut a figure vastly different from the bland establishmentarians who have ran Austria for decades. Villified by theEuropean elite class as a neo-Nazi anti-Semite, he was a talented man of uncertain principles, great ambition, and dubious judgment.
Haider died only weeks after his Alliance for the Future of Austria (BündnisZukunft Österreich, BZÖ) won an impressive 11 percent of the vote in the general election, while the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) – which he had led from 1986 until 2000, and from which he split in 2005 – gained 18 per cent.It was the best result for Austria's opponents of rampant immigration and EU integration in the history of the Republic
Born in 1950 to a lower-middle-class family in Upper Austria, Haider never forgot various indignities that his parents suffered after the war for alleged Nazi sympathies. Common folks like they took the rap for the "really big Nazis," he later complained.
Academically brilliant and popular among peers, in his teens Haider excelled as an actor in school plays. This talent he put to ample use in later years: in the course of a single day he was known to change three or four outfits, from the traditional Austrian jacket to suit-and-tie to jeans and sweater, depending on the audience. He also had a gift for rhetoric, winning a debating contest at 16 in support of the motion that Austrians are in factGerman.
After obtaining his law degree in Vienna Haider lectured briefly inconstitutional law, but politics was always his true vocation – and theFreedom Party, which he joined in 1976, seemed the obvious choice for a man with his views. Founded in 1955, for decades the FPO combined pan-Germanism and what might be called Central European libertarianism. It was by no means a "far-Right" political force when Haider joined, but its position on the issue of national identity attracted him to its ranks. Haider rapidly became the leader of the FPÖ youth movement and quickly rose through the ranks. By 1979 he was the youngest parliamentary deputy ever in the Austrian Republic.
In the early 1980s Haider grew impatient with the party leadership, which he regarded as too soft on immigration, wishy-washy on national identity or sovereignty threatened from Brussels, and resigned to single-digit election results. By 1983, after he became party chairman in the southern province of Carinthia, Haider became openly critical of the aider FPÖ national leadership. Three years later he staged a successful coup at the party convention against its leader, Norbert Steger, a "moderate" who was at that time Austria's vice-chancellor in coalition with the Socialists (SPÖ). Haider's Young Turks were enthusiastic. The new spirit was captured in a party activist's quip, "With Haider I'd march into Russia again, but with Steger I would not even go on holiday."
In 1989 Haider broke the Socialists' traditional hold on Carinthia by winning 29 percent of the local vote, formed a coalition with the ÖVP, and was elected Landeshauptmann (or governor) of the province. His tenure is remembered mainly for a 1991 debate in the provincial assembly at Klagenfurt that resulted in his resignation. A Socialist deputy attacked Haider's scheme to cut unemployment payments for recipients he described as "freeloaders," claiming it was similar to forced work placement in the Nazi era. "It would not be like the Third Reich," Haider replied, "because the Third Reich developed a proper employment policy, which your government in Vienna has not once produced." In addition to causing Haider's resignation, this exchange also prompted the ÖVP to swith partners and enter a coalition with the SPÖ.
In the course of a national election campaign in 1995, Haider met a group of SS veterans, of whom he said: "There are still decent people of good character who also stick to their convictions, despite the greatest opposition, and have remained true to their convictions until today." He made a sudden U-turn on the issue of national identity during that same campaign, however, announcing that pan-Germanism was finished and that he was an "Austrian patriot." Some what bizzarely, at that time Haider also described himself as a follower of Newt Gingrich, whose "Contract WithAmerica" he used in his manifesto. The electorate was not enthused.
Four years later Haider focused on social issues and immigration – and improved his party's standing dramatically, gaining 27 percent of the vote. The FPÖ formed the ruling coalition with the People's Party, although Haider himself was not a member of the new government (in early 1999 he was re-elected the governor of Carinthia). The move nevertheless caused an uproar in Brussels: the European Union decided to impose sanctions on Austria even before the government had announced its program. "There is a lot of excitement in the European chicken pen," Haider quipped, "and the fox hasn't even got in."
This episode merits some attention because it reveals in a raw form the mix of authoritarianism and hypocrisy characteristic of Brussels. On January 31, 2000, the European Union informed Austria that it would face boycott if its new government included the FPÖ. On February 4 Chancellor Schuessel nevertheless went ahead and brought members of the Freedom Party into his coalition. He was acting in full accord with the rules of parliamentary democracy: the new government had a clear majority of 104 out of 183 parliamentary deputies. EU governments duly severed all bilateral political contacts with the Austrian government. They also restricted the promotion of Austrians at EU headquarters and ignored Austrian ministers at EU meetings. The measures also included ban on school trips, cultural exchanges and military exercises. The U.S. joined the band wagon and the StateDepartment called Ambassador Kathryn Hall back to Washington for "consultations."
Although the measures had no impact on the lives of ordinary Austrians, they triggered a backlash among the Austrian public. They also caused an outcryin some smaller EU nations – notably Denmark – fearful of the domination of more powerful members, such as France, which pushed for punitive measures. For months thereafter the EU's Portuguese presidency maintained that the sanctions would remain, but after the EU foreign ministers' Azores meeting in June 2000 it was obvious that the embargo could not be sustained.
The EU sanctions were illegal because the decision to apply them was taken outside the EU structures and without due process: the Austrian government was not allowed have its point of view heard before the other members states took action against it. The EU action was doubly contentious in view of the fact that Mr. Haider's party was democratically elected and had not done, or even said, anything contrary to Austria's constitutional system or European law. Even those Austrians not sympathetic to Haider came to believe that EU's heavy-handedness was an insult to their country.
By that time Haider's ambiguous statements on the Third Reich had ceased tobe part of his politically operative vocabulary. On the other hand, his main message – that there are too many foreigners in Austria and that immigration threatens the country's economy and traditional ethnic composition – is evenmore valid today than a decade ago.That message is now shared by two parties. One of them (FPÖ) Haider led to national prominence; the other(BZÖ) he created from scratch. They command 29 percent of the electorate between them, but were unlikely to cooperate because of the bitter personal animosity between Haider and the current FPÖ leader and former Haider protégé Heinz-Christian Strache. Ironically, the Austrian nationalist Rightmay be better poised to achieve unity that has eluded it for years now that its poster boy is no longer with us.
"For us, it's the end of the world," a visibly distressed spokesman from Haider's party, Stefan Petzner, told the press; "Joerg Haider was apolitician who changed the face of politics in this country."
The end of the world it certainly is not: nearly 50 percent of under-30s now support either Heider's original party or the one he founded three years ago and led at the time of his death. Joerg Haider's legacy will live on for many years to come.
by S.T
Haider died only weeks after his Alliance for the Future of Austria (BündnisZukunft Österreich, BZÖ) won an impressive 11 percent of the vote in the general election, while the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) – which he had led from 1986 until 2000, and from which he split in 2005 – gained 18 per cent.It was the best result for Austria's opponents of rampant immigration and EU integration in the history of the Republic
Born in 1950 to a lower-middle-class family in Upper Austria, Haider never forgot various indignities that his parents suffered after the war for alleged Nazi sympathies. Common folks like they took the rap for the "really big Nazis," he later complained.
Academically brilliant and popular among peers, in his teens Haider excelled as an actor in school plays. This talent he put to ample use in later years: in the course of a single day he was known to change three or four outfits, from the traditional Austrian jacket to suit-and-tie to jeans and sweater, depending on the audience. He also had a gift for rhetoric, winning a debating contest at 16 in support of the motion that Austrians are in factGerman.
After obtaining his law degree in Vienna Haider lectured briefly inconstitutional law, but politics was always his true vocation – and theFreedom Party, which he joined in 1976, seemed the obvious choice for a man with his views. Founded in 1955, for decades the FPO combined pan-Germanism and what might be called Central European libertarianism. It was by no means a "far-Right" political force when Haider joined, but its position on the issue of national identity attracted him to its ranks. Haider rapidly became the leader of the FPÖ youth movement and quickly rose through the ranks. By 1979 he was the youngest parliamentary deputy ever in the Austrian Republic.
In the early 1980s Haider grew impatient with the party leadership, which he regarded as too soft on immigration, wishy-washy on national identity or sovereignty threatened from Brussels, and resigned to single-digit election results. By 1983, after he became party chairman in the southern province of Carinthia, Haider became openly critical of the aider FPÖ national leadership. Three years later he staged a successful coup at the party convention against its leader, Norbert Steger, a "moderate" who was at that time Austria's vice-chancellor in coalition with the Socialists (SPÖ). Haider's Young Turks were enthusiastic. The new spirit was captured in a party activist's quip, "With Haider I'd march into Russia again, but with Steger I would not even go on holiday."
In 1989 Haider broke the Socialists' traditional hold on Carinthia by winning 29 percent of the local vote, formed a coalition with the ÖVP, and was elected Landeshauptmann (or governor) of the province. His tenure is remembered mainly for a 1991 debate in the provincial assembly at Klagenfurt that resulted in his resignation. A Socialist deputy attacked Haider's scheme to cut unemployment payments for recipients he described as "freeloaders," claiming it was similar to forced work placement in the Nazi era. "It would not be like the Third Reich," Haider replied, "because the Third Reich developed a proper employment policy, which your government in Vienna has not once produced." In addition to causing Haider's resignation, this exchange also prompted the ÖVP to swith partners and enter a coalition with the SPÖ.
In the course of a national election campaign in 1995, Haider met a group of SS veterans, of whom he said: "There are still decent people of good character who also stick to their convictions, despite the greatest opposition, and have remained true to their convictions until today." He made a sudden U-turn on the issue of national identity during that same campaign, however, announcing that pan-Germanism was finished and that he was an "Austrian patriot." Some what bizzarely, at that time Haider also described himself as a follower of Newt Gingrich, whose "Contract WithAmerica" he used in his manifesto. The electorate was not enthused.
Four years later Haider focused on social issues and immigration – and improved his party's standing dramatically, gaining 27 percent of the vote. The FPÖ formed the ruling coalition with the People's Party, although Haider himself was not a member of the new government (in early 1999 he was re-elected the governor of Carinthia). The move nevertheless caused an uproar in Brussels: the European Union decided to impose sanctions on Austria even before the government had announced its program. "There is a lot of excitement in the European chicken pen," Haider quipped, "and the fox hasn't even got in."
This episode merits some attention because it reveals in a raw form the mix of authoritarianism and hypocrisy characteristic of Brussels. On January 31, 2000, the European Union informed Austria that it would face boycott if its new government included the FPÖ. On February 4 Chancellor Schuessel nevertheless went ahead and brought members of the Freedom Party into his coalition. He was acting in full accord with the rules of parliamentary democracy: the new government had a clear majority of 104 out of 183 parliamentary deputies. EU governments duly severed all bilateral political contacts with the Austrian government. They also restricted the promotion of Austrians at EU headquarters and ignored Austrian ministers at EU meetings. The measures also included ban on school trips, cultural exchanges and military exercises. The U.S. joined the band wagon and the StateDepartment called Ambassador Kathryn Hall back to Washington for "consultations."
Although the measures had no impact on the lives of ordinary Austrians, they triggered a backlash among the Austrian public. They also caused an outcryin some smaller EU nations – notably Denmark – fearful of the domination of more powerful members, such as France, which pushed for punitive measures. For months thereafter the EU's Portuguese presidency maintained that the sanctions would remain, but after the EU foreign ministers' Azores meeting in June 2000 it was obvious that the embargo could not be sustained.
The EU sanctions were illegal because the decision to apply them was taken outside the EU structures and without due process: the Austrian government was not allowed have its point of view heard before the other members states took action against it. The EU action was doubly contentious in view of the fact that Mr. Haider's party was democratically elected and had not done, or even said, anything contrary to Austria's constitutional system or European law. Even those Austrians not sympathetic to Haider came to believe that EU's heavy-handedness was an insult to their country.
By that time Haider's ambiguous statements on the Third Reich had ceased tobe part of his politically operative vocabulary. On the other hand, his main message – that there are too many foreigners in Austria and that immigration threatens the country's economy and traditional ethnic composition – is evenmore valid today than a decade ago.That message is now shared by two parties. One of them (FPÖ) Haider led to national prominence; the other(BZÖ) he created from scratch. They command 29 percent of the electorate between them, but were unlikely to cooperate because of the bitter personal animosity between Haider and the current FPÖ leader and former Haider protégé Heinz-Christian Strache. Ironically, the Austrian nationalist Rightmay be better poised to achieve unity that has eluded it for years now that its poster boy is no longer with us.
"For us, it's the end of the world," a visibly distressed spokesman from Haider's party, Stefan Petzner, told the press; "Joerg Haider was apolitician who changed the face of politics in this country."
The end of the world it certainly is not: nearly 50 percent of under-30s now support either Heider's original party or the one he founded three years ago and led at the time of his death. Joerg Haider's legacy will live on for many years to come.
by S.T
2008. október 16., csütörtök
Evo Morales is promoting 'War' and 'Racial Hatred' in Bolivia
Human Rights Foundation Blasts Evo Morales
for Promoting 'War' and 'Racial Hatred'
On numerous occasions over the past few years I have watched as many so-called "Human Rights Organizations" active in Latin America acted with near complicity to provide cover for leftist regimes, political movements, and even narco-guerrilla bands who repeatedly violated international human rights standards. In order to diminish international public pressure to curtail the excesses of these leftist agitators, and therefore to provide a breathing space for the fulfillment of their political aims, many of these Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have betrayed the cause for which they ostensibly stand and have instead carried out a veiled program of concealment that places real support for human rights below that of a leftist-oriented political and cultural agenda. Some of the best examples of this complicity can be seen in the actions and attitudes of NGOs towards the FARC in Colombia, though there are others. In light of all this, I take pleasure in stating that the work of the Human Rights Foundation this year with respect to Latin America is a genuine breath of fresh air.Ladies and gentlemen, the Human Rights Foundation is the real thing.On August 9, I posted on the HRF's Tell Chavez campaign for the freedom of Venezuela's political prisoners, which is a worthwhile cause deserving of the support of lovers of freedom and democracy everywhere. In that effort the HRF set themselves apart from many other NGOs in their decision to cut Chavez no slack for his repeated human rights abuses and political skullduggery. The HRF also has been on top of recent events in Bolivia. In January they released an almost-forgotten critique of the inclusion of clauses establishing the constitutional legitimacy of what is referred to as "communitarian justice" within the Oruro Draft of the proposed constitution Evo Morales and the MAS are promoting as I write. If adopted, mob rule within some of the indigenous communities in Bolivia's west would become legal and we could expect to see crucifixions, lashing, corporal punishment, stoning and live burial of women for adultery, lynchings, and more become established constitutional practice under Bolivian law. And the HRF can proudly take credit for assuming the lead role in publicizing the case of Ecuadoran dissident Guadalupe Llori, recently released from prison for false charges of terrorism, sabotage, and embezzlement.With respect to other NGOs active in Latin America, even though there have been indications that Human Rights Watch has been undergoing a change of heart with respect to Chavez recently -- two of their representatives were expelled from Venezuela last month -- the HRF has stood nearly alone among foreign NGOs monitoring the cause of human rights in Latin America in its consistent condemnation of the widespread abuses of the Bolivarian regimes in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. It is worth pointing out here that the organization's efforts in Venezuela have been especially dangerous. In January, Venezuelan jurist and HRF activist Monica Fernandez survived an assassination attempt that left her fiancé severely wounded with three gunshot wounds, one day after the Chavez regime declared her an enemy of the state. Not surprisingly, the Venezuelan government dropped the investigation into the attack.When you put it all together, the Human Rights Foundation's record of true human rights advocacy, achieved at the cost of facing down intimidation and violence, marks the organization as an exemplary undertaking of the human spirit that gives us hope that there may be a liveable future for humanity.The Bolivia ReportYesterday the HRF published its Informe sobre la situación de los Derechos Humanos en Bolivia (Report on the Human Rights Situation in Bolivia). The text of the report was released only in Spanish, and it was sent to Bolivian President Evo Morales along with an accompanying letter, which I intend to excerpt in part, as it provides a brief overview of the highlights of the report itself.
Translated Excerpts from Letter of Human Rights Foundationto Bolivian President Evo Morales.Accompanies "Report on the Human Rights Situation in Bolivia,"08 October 2008
From the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) we respectfully address ourselves to you, in your capacity as head of state, to express to you our profound preoccupation for the growing wave of killings for political motives that is occurring in your country and for the continuous pronouncements emitted by you and by high functionaries of your government, whose content advertises war, defends racial hatred, threatens freedom of the press and tends to worsen the human rights situation in Bolivia.
It is widely known that a great political polarization exists in Bolivia which was evidenced by the results of the referendums carried out over the last few months . . .
. . . This political polarization in Bolivia has heightened over the last weeks, bringing as a consequence manifestations of violence which up to now have left at least 21 dead and hundreds injured. Facing this situation, we view with preoccupation that the response of the government comes in the form of speech that incites more violence and which openly defends groups of civilians armed against persons and cities of the opposition. This speech continues fully charged with degrading adjectives such as "racists," "fascists," "separatists," "sellers of the country," "anti-patriots," "oligarchs," and "rightists."
First, your constant verbal attacks are generating aggressions against the press on the part of your followers. During the protests for the devolution of the [revenues from the] Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, several journalists who covered the events were assaulted. Instead of condemning these aggressions, you and the spokesman of your government, Ivan Canelas, accused the PAT and Unitel television networks and the El Mundo newspaper of being "dirty" and "irresponsible."
Second, President Morales, your consistent speech calling upon your political supporters "to die" so as "to defend the revolution" from the actions of the "coup supporters" constitutes propaganda in favor of war and incites political violence and puts the life of every person in Bolivia in danger. Finally, the official speech with which you disqualify those persons who are not in agreement with the policies of your government seeks to silence the political leaders of the opposing departments, threatening the right of political participation. . . .
. . . the use your government makes of the language in your speech gives rise to a much more serious connotation than the merely political. In effect, President Morales, the HRF also wishes to express its preoccupation because your political speech disqualifying the opponents of your government would also promote racial hatred on the part of the national majority of Bolivia's west, namely, persons of "Aymara" or "Quechua" origin, against the national minorities of Bolivia's east and south, namely, "Cambas" (Indians or Mestizos of Bolivia's east) or "Chapacos" (of the Department of Tarija) who live in the majority in the departments opposed to the government . . . We have seen the signs of racial hatred against the "Cambas," such as in the city of El Alto in the Department of La Paz (http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/12-09-08/12_09_08_poli5.php), as in Internet sites which support your government (http://bolivia.indymedia.org/search/node/cambas), and we fear that this is reflected in your speech. . . .
The report itself presents the evidence substantiating the charges made above in much greater detail. It is sixteen pages long and is divided into five main parts: "Antecedents," which gives an overview of the recent background to the political polarization that now exists in the country, primarily related to the autonomy referendums, the proposed constitution, and the results of the revocatory referendum votes; "Passing Events Between August and September, 2008," which examines the inter-departmental strike of the five eastern departments to force the devolution of the revenues of the Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, coupled with Morales's failed attempt to convene a national referendum on his constitution by executive decree, including the manner in which the protests degenerated into the forcible takeover of government offices, actions which the HRF disapproved of in its own statements; "Violations of the Right of Freedom of Expression," in which the HRF reviews the numerous attacks against the press, including the encitement to violence against the media on the part of the government, as well as the official promotion of racial hatred; "Deaths in Confrontations for Political Motives and the Danger of Larger Violence," where the HRF presents the story of the violence of September 11-13 in Pando, especially with reference to Porvenir, as well as the armed march of Morales supporters against Santa Cruz de la Sierra, which came to a head between the 23rd and 25th of September. And finally, a concluding section containing the HRF's recommendations for a restoration of the observance of human rights in Bolivia, which are largely reflected in the excerpts quoted above.Results?There has not been any official reaction as of yet coming from the Morales regime, and I expect they will chose simply to ignore the report. Its major impact may be that some discussion will ensue within Bolivia and the region. The La Paz daily newspaper La Razón did publish news of the report, which does make its overall content known to the Bolivian people, but without a public discussion of its particulars it may not go very far. But what may be most important is that there is a documented version of the events in Porvenir and the armed march against Santa Cruz that can now be cited as a credible source of information. This may not seem like very much, but some of the most important work human rights organizations perform lies within the documentation they provide of significant events which are not always covered in the major media to the full extent they deserve. Reports such as this one are circulated among many international organizations and the list one can see attached to the cover letter sent to Evo Morales makes this clear. It is at least one small step out of the darkness.Within the blogosphere there is a little reaction. The MABB blog has posted news of the report with the unusual comment that the report is "amusing," which I take to be a reference to the unlikelihood that it will have any effect upon Evo Morales, who is not known for responsible conduct. MABB has also pointed to Morales's desire to rid himself of international contacts as a necessary step towards the achievement of his program, so this would seem to fit. Bolivia Confidencial merely published the cover letter I excerpted above with the comment, as I translate, that it is "an important document" that "was not wasted." And Martha Colmenares presents the HRF's own case to Spanish language readers on her site, which has followed recent events in Bolivia much more closely than many others and which I must recognize as presenting me with the very best coverage I have found thus far.
Translated Excerpts from Letter of Human Rights Foundationto Bolivian President Evo Morales.Accompanies "Report on the Human Rights Situation in Bolivia,"08 October 2008
From the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) we respectfully address ourselves to you, in your capacity as head of state, to express to you our profound preoccupation for the growing wave of killings for political motives that is occurring in your country and for the continuous pronouncements emitted by you and by high functionaries of your government, whose content advertises war, defends racial hatred, threatens freedom of the press and tends to worsen the human rights situation in Bolivia.
It is widely known that a great political polarization exists in Bolivia which was evidenced by the results of the referendums carried out over the last few months . . .
. . . This political polarization in Bolivia has heightened over the last weeks, bringing as a consequence manifestations of violence which up to now have left at least 21 dead and hundreds injured. Facing this situation, we view with preoccupation that the response of the government comes in the form of speech that incites more violence and which openly defends groups of civilians armed against persons and cities of the opposition. This speech continues fully charged with degrading adjectives such as "racists," "fascists," "separatists," "sellers of the country," "anti-patriots," "oligarchs," and "rightists."
First, your constant verbal attacks are generating aggressions against the press on the part of your followers. During the protests for the devolution of the [revenues from the] Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, several journalists who covered the events were assaulted. Instead of condemning these aggressions, you and the spokesman of your government, Ivan Canelas, accused the PAT and Unitel television networks and the El Mundo newspaper of being "dirty" and "irresponsible."
Second, President Morales, your consistent speech calling upon your political supporters "to die" so as "to defend the revolution" from the actions of the "coup supporters" constitutes propaganda in favor of war and incites political violence and puts the life of every person in Bolivia in danger. Finally, the official speech with which you disqualify those persons who are not in agreement with the policies of your government seeks to silence the political leaders of the opposing departments, threatening the right of political participation. . . .
. . . the use your government makes of the language in your speech gives rise to a much more serious connotation than the merely political. In effect, President Morales, the HRF also wishes to express its preoccupation because your political speech disqualifying the opponents of your government would also promote racial hatred on the part of the national majority of Bolivia's west, namely, persons of "Aymara" or "Quechua" origin, against the national minorities of Bolivia's east and south, namely, "Cambas" (Indians or Mestizos of Bolivia's east) or "Chapacos" (of the Department of Tarija) who live in the majority in the departments opposed to the government . . . We have seen the signs of racial hatred against the "Cambas," such as in the city of El Alto in the Department of La Paz (http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/12-09-08/12_09_08_poli5.php), as in Internet sites which support your government (http://bolivia.indymedia.org/search/node/cambas), and we fear that this is reflected in your speech. . . .
The report itself presents the evidence substantiating the charges made above in much greater detail. It is sixteen pages long and is divided into five main parts: "Antecedents," which gives an overview of the recent background to the political polarization that now exists in the country, primarily related to the autonomy referendums, the proposed constitution, and the results of the revocatory referendum votes; "Passing Events Between August and September, 2008," which examines the inter-departmental strike of the five eastern departments to force the devolution of the revenues of the Direct Hydrocarbons Tax, coupled with Morales's failed attempt to convene a national referendum on his constitution by executive decree, including the manner in which the protests degenerated into the forcible takeover of government offices, actions which the HRF disapproved of in its own statements; "Violations of the Right of Freedom of Expression," in which the HRF reviews the numerous attacks against the press, including the encitement to violence against the media on the part of the government, as well as the official promotion of racial hatred; "Deaths in Confrontations for Political Motives and the Danger of Larger Violence," where the HRF presents the story of the violence of September 11-13 in Pando, especially with reference to Porvenir, as well as the armed march of Morales supporters against Santa Cruz de la Sierra, which came to a head between the 23rd and 25th of September. And finally, a concluding section containing the HRF's recommendations for a restoration of the observance of human rights in Bolivia, which are largely reflected in the excerpts quoted above.Results?There has not been any official reaction as of yet coming from the Morales regime, and I expect they will chose simply to ignore the report. Its major impact may be that some discussion will ensue within Bolivia and the region. The La Paz daily newspaper La Razón did publish news of the report, which does make its overall content known to the Bolivian people, but without a public discussion of its particulars it may not go very far. But what may be most important is that there is a documented version of the events in Porvenir and the armed march against Santa Cruz that can now be cited as a credible source of information. This may not seem like very much, but some of the most important work human rights organizations perform lies within the documentation they provide of significant events which are not always covered in the major media to the full extent they deserve. Reports such as this one are circulated among many international organizations and the list one can see attached to the cover letter sent to Evo Morales makes this clear. It is at least one small step out of the darkness.Within the blogosphere there is a little reaction. The MABB blog has posted news of the report with the unusual comment that the report is "amusing," which I take to be a reference to the unlikelihood that it will have any effect upon Evo Morales, who is not known for responsible conduct. MABB has also pointed to Morales's desire to rid himself of international contacts as a necessary step towards the achievement of his program, so this would seem to fit. Bolivia Confidencial merely published the cover letter I excerpted above with the comment, as I translate, that it is "an important document" that "was not wasted." And Martha Colmenares presents the HRF's own case to Spanish language readers on her site, which has followed recent events in Bolivia much more closely than many others and which I must recognize as presenting me with the very best coverage I have found thus far.
StJacques
Kepes András műsora
2008. október 13., hétfő
Montenegro, Macedonia recognize Kosova!
.
So...this is the way to do.
No more discussions...This is a clever and claire message for everybody: you fight? so, you got the right to live free and independent.
This is a message, and not the first one to all the peoples and nations fighting today -and maybe tomorrow- for their INDEPENDANCE!
Long live to the Free and Independant Kosova!
Thank You UÇK for your struggle: a example for all of us in this days...months...
Eduardo
Montenegrin and Macedonian governments on Thursday decided to recognize the Kosovo Albanians' unilateral declaration of independence.
Beta news agency reported that the decision was announced by Montenegro's Foreign Minister Milan Roćen, who said the cabinet members voted unanimously. Later on Thursday, Macedonian cabinet also decided to recognize the proclamation.
Beta news agency reported that the decision was announced by Montenegro's Foreign Minister Milan Roćen, who said the cabinet members voted unanimously. Later on Thursday, Macedonian cabinet also decided to recognize the proclamation.
In Podgorica, Serb People's Party (SNS) leader Andrija Mandić announced that the Montenegrin opposition will now "consult the people" about the developments.
"As politicians, we have done all in our power, now, it is in the hands of the people. We will consult the people and the people will help us to have its majority will on this issue taken into account," Mandić said.
Earlier, Podgorica daily Vijesti wrote that the Montenegrin government will most probably take a decision on recognizing the province's independence at its meeting today, while the Macedonian parliament is debating a resolution in urgent procedure on recognizing Kosovo at its session.
Vijesti reported that everything was in place for Prime Minister Milo Đukanović's cabinet to announce publicly today Podgorica's intentions to establish diplomatic relations with Priština.
Đukanović himself, as well as President Filip Vujanović have all, in the last week, stated that Montenegrin recognition of Kosovo is now but a formailty.
In Skopje meanwhile, the move to debate the issue was decided at a meeting of the parliamentary parties' coordinators and the speaker, Trajko Veljanovski, on the evening on Oct. 8.
The coordinators and Veljanovski decided to include on the agenda, as an urgent matter, a resolution on recognizing Kosovo.
On the evening on Oct. 8, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski held a meeting with the ministers from his VMRO-DPMNE party.
The resolution on recognizing Kosovo was included on the agenda of the Oct. 9 parliament session, after two Albanian parties - the Democratic Party of Albanians and the Democratic Union for Integration collected the necessary 20 signatures from MPs.
Other parties represented in the parliament accepted the initiative of the two Albanian parties.
Serbian reaction
Democratic Party whip Nada Kolundžija said today that neighboring countries had a special responsibility to preserve regional stability and that a compromise solution was the only way to resolve the Kosovo issue.
Kolunžija said that even though there were clear suspicions that Kosovo’s independence had been declared in contravention of international law, "all neighbors, who recognize Kosovo under pressure, assume the responsibility for [regional] stability on themselves,” she said, commenting on the possibility that Montenegro and Macedonia would recognize Kosovo.
Liberal Democratic Party leader Čedomir Jovanović said that Montenegro and Macedonia’s possible recognition of the province's independence reflected the great differences between the interests of Serbia and the interests of neighboring countries.
"We need to ask ourselves how we fell so out of step with our neighbors, and what the proper reaction should be if Macedonia and Montenegro recognize Kosovo,” Jovanović told journalists in parliament.
He said that he did not agree with the withdrawal of ambassadors, because that was a pattern “tied to Vojislav Koštunica’s government that compromised the good relations we had with our neighbors up to then, and which are very important.”
United Serbia leader Dragan Marković said that Montenegro was entitled to recognize an independent Kosovo, but that Serbia should then change its position regarding economic cooperation with Podgorica.
"That is Montenegro’s right, but we need to change our position towards Montenegro, regarding economic cooperation. It is well-known that Montenegrin agricultural is struggling, but we can also stop going to their resorts in the summer,” Marković said.
"As politicians, we have done all in our power, now, it is in the hands of the people. We will consult the people and the people will help us to have its majority will on this issue taken into account," Mandić said.
Earlier, Podgorica daily Vijesti wrote that the Montenegrin government will most probably take a decision on recognizing the province's independence at its meeting today, while the Macedonian parliament is debating a resolution in urgent procedure on recognizing Kosovo at its session.
Vijesti reported that everything was in place for Prime Minister Milo Đukanović's cabinet to announce publicly today Podgorica's intentions to establish diplomatic relations with Priština.
Đukanović himself, as well as President Filip Vujanović have all, in the last week, stated that Montenegrin recognition of Kosovo is now but a formailty.
In Skopje meanwhile, the move to debate the issue was decided at a meeting of the parliamentary parties' coordinators and the speaker, Trajko Veljanovski, on the evening on Oct. 8.
The coordinators and Veljanovski decided to include on the agenda, as an urgent matter, a resolution on recognizing Kosovo.
On the evening on Oct. 8, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski held a meeting with the ministers from his VMRO-DPMNE party.
The resolution on recognizing Kosovo was included on the agenda of the Oct. 9 parliament session, after two Albanian parties - the Democratic Party of Albanians and the Democratic Union for Integration collected the necessary 20 signatures from MPs.
Other parties represented in the parliament accepted the initiative of the two Albanian parties.
Serbian reaction
Democratic Party whip Nada Kolundžija said today that neighboring countries had a special responsibility to preserve regional stability and that a compromise solution was the only way to resolve the Kosovo issue.
Kolunžija said that even though there were clear suspicions that Kosovo’s independence had been declared in contravention of international law, "all neighbors, who recognize Kosovo under pressure, assume the responsibility for [regional] stability on themselves,” she said, commenting on the possibility that Montenegro and Macedonia would recognize Kosovo.
Liberal Democratic Party leader Čedomir Jovanović said that Montenegro and Macedonia’s possible recognition of the province's independence reflected the great differences between the interests of Serbia and the interests of neighboring countries.
"We need to ask ourselves how we fell so out of step with our neighbors, and what the proper reaction should be if Macedonia and Montenegro recognize Kosovo,” Jovanović told journalists in parliament.
He said that he did not agree with the withdrawal of ambassadors, because that was a pattern “tied to Vojislav Koštunica’s government that compromised the good relations we had with our neighbors up to then, and which are very important.”
United Serbia leader Dragan Marković said that Montenegro was entitled to recognize an independent Kosovo, but that Serbia should then change its position regarding economic cooperation with Podgorica.
"That is Montenegro’s right, but we need to change our position towards Montenegro, regarding economic cooperation. It is well-known that Montenegrin agricultural is struggling, but we can also stop going to their resorts in the summer,” Marković said.
Source: B92, FoNet, BetaPODGORICA, SKOPJE, me
Feliratkozás:
Bejegyzések (Atom)