In handling the Turkish President’s visit to Syria, the Bush administration went way too far and forgot that the management of the relation with Turkey was 80% representative. However, the visit to Syria was not at all determining and seemed to be purely formal. It was about the answer to Bachar El-Assad’s visit to Ankara in January, 2004. Nevertheless, though powerless, the Turkish advocate respect for their president.
The Turkish did not send their president as a proof of solidarity with Damascus, but as an expression of Ankara’s concerns regarding the situation in Lebanon, preserving at the same time convenient bilateral relations. It is deplorable that Washington publicly demanded that Turkey did not go on that visit - a public announcement that gave the Turkish no diplomatic choice to renounce the trip. From that moment on, the 70 million Turkish wanted that visit to take place at any rate. So there was no reversing it any longer. The relations between Ankara and Washington have been deteriorating.
The United States should always remember that treating Turkey requires an exaggerated respect for Turkey’s national sovereignty and dignity. This lesson is applied to other countries as well and the United States keeps forgetting about it more often than not.

For his life, word and written work, Pope John Paul II set the grounds of a liberation that caused a strong impression in Poland and still expands. Thanks to him, we live today in a different Poland. Thanks to him I can speak out my mind. In the columnist block, the totalitarian armies and their agents fought any initiative favorable to democracy. For years, I tried to regroup people who were willing to fight communism but I was unable to mobilize my fellow countrymen since they were under the effect of fear. Everything changed in 1979 when Pope John Paul II visited my country. A Polish had become Pope and returned to his country to tell us not to be afraid. The world witnessed then a manifestation of faith in a communist country. The Pope restored the Polish pride, triggered uprisings in Europe. We are now the orphans of the Holy Father who returned to the arms of God. He handed down to us, however, a profound faith in the values that we still fight for.

In 1998, Turkey was gathering its troops at the border with Syria so that the latter’s help to the PKK would cease in the Turkish Kurdistan . This threat led Damascus to expel Oçalan, who was later arrested in Nairobi. Those were the beautiful days of Turkey-Israel-U.S. co-operation. Today, Ankara appears in the headlines as a result of its anti-Americanism and its anti-Israeli feelings. Only one has to see what the best sellers have been so far: the best sold book now is a novel on the war between Turkey and the U.S. followed by Mein Kampf.
Given the circumstances, it is not surprising then that Turkey got closer to Syria and Iran - a rapprochement that started during the Iraq war. Syria is searching for allies; and what is more amazing is the fact that Turkey has responded to this call in a favorable way. In fact, Turkey has always been more inclined to the West than it is to the East and the Arab world. Turkey turns to the Middle East only for the Kurdish problem and the policy of the great powers in the region. The peak of anti-Americanism is connected to the belief that Washington wants to create an independent Kurdistan in Iraq. This has caused Turkey to turn to Syria, which also faces a Kurdish problem. On its side, Damascus feels locked in and does not want to owe everything to Iran, since its strategic interests do not always correspond to each other. Syria expects Turkey to be favorable due to its adhesion to NATO and its links with Washington.
Consequently, such rapprochement owes only to the U.S. policy in the region and could cease very soon if Jalal Talabani showed that the Kurdish want to continue to be Iraqi. Ankara would also depart from Syria if it soon moved closer to the European Union.

John Paul II and Bin Laden never had the chance to meet but they both fought in the same front and Ronald Reagan was their example. The Pope and the Sheik provided the US president with spiritual ammunition against the “Evil Empire”. The Catholic Pope played his role in the first front in the East-West confrontation while Bin Laden carried out a second-front war of similar importance.
The Pope stirred up Polish nationalism, impregnated with Catholicism, and extended his influence to all Catholic regions of the European communist bloc. But this influence was not limited to Europe as it spread to Latin America where it fought a prickly battle against the “liberation theology” and against churches participating in social and national struggles. There, he supported the “Yankees”, the big landowners and military dictatorships against people who did not want to continue living in banana republics. John Paul II also faced the liberal Catholics of Western Europe. Thus, the church dissociated itself from the youth.
On the other side, during Breznev’s last years, the USSR stupidly invaded Afghanistan. Then, we witnessed the birth of the first national liberation movement with an Islamic ideology, which had the support of the United States who helped the most reactionary groups. For the United States, the Muslim Soviet republics were the Achilles’ heel of its rival and they provided an opportunity for a Viet Nam in reverse. Bin Laden was the symbol of these groups and he recruited thousands of young Arabs to fight “atheism”, which at the same time created the conditions necessary for the breaking of the alliance between Arab liberation movements and his international ally.
The Pope and Bin Laden favored the same policy. By winning these battles, the United States spread its influence to Eastern European countries but it abandoned Afghanistan to its fate. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pope and Bin Laden distanced themselves from the United States. The Pope adopted a reformist speech in the regions under Washington’s attention and lost influence. During the same period, Bin Laden took advantage of the US’s aggressiveness in the Muslim-Arab world.

A document in my hands shows that even cardinals receive grades like in a school. I received it from theologian Ferdinand Klostermann, who died in 1982. I am talking about seven photocopies dated August 28, 1974. They were typed in French lacking letterhead and signature. The text is about the upcoming conclave, its modification and the tendencies of eligible cardinals. The names of the possible Popes are underlined in nota bene followed by the other 107 then conclave participants.
The gradings are as follows: 1-Extremely tied to tradition; 2- Tied to tradition; 3- Relatively open but respectful; 4- Opportunist, he can switch from one tendency to another; 5- Rather inclined to new tendencies; 6- Clearly inclined to new tendencies. The document also includes the names of cardinals near the 80-year fateful age limit that excludes them from the conclave - it was then the case of 72 of them. The reflections of the Vatican diplomats about the nature of probable coalitions in the following conclave are better understood. The choice of tendencies 3 and 4 is decisive if they join tendencies 1 and 2. The naming is planned beforehand: tendencies 1 and 2 are needed and Karol Wojtila was in number 1.
The document does not specify the meaning of “tradition” or “new tendencies”. The 160 papal nuncios were educated in the most ancient European diplomacy; they know what it is all about and they are discreet in this respect. The speech about the future of the church is only an illusion. The new captain’s agenda was designed a long time ago.

Ninety years ago, on April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Turkey started the genocide of the Armenian. For political reasons, a state had decided to exterminate a whole people. The Turkish tried to get rid of the Armenian issue, availing themselves of the chaos caused by World War I. One million and a half Armenians died and hundreds of thousands should have fled from their settlements. It is our moral duty not to forget our murdered ancestors. This genocide was not always condemned by the country where it had been devised and executed.
Legally speaking, we demand that the victims be registered and that the guilty be named. Presently in Turkey, one can always be the object of a judicial proceeding if the word genocide is associated to the extermination of Armenians.
We want to highlight the universal implications of such a crime against humanity. The international institutions - the European Parliament among them - have requested that Turkey face its past since these black spots will grow on to be virulent ones as long as the Turkish do not expiate them. It is a matter of the Turkish internal policy; the behavior in the face of such a genocide may reveal the system of values of a society. Some Turkish scholars have started to insist on their people accepting their responsibilities and I bow to their courage. The Turkish adhesion process to the EU may cause the relationships between our two countries to evolve. In the meantime, the EU is getting ready to assimilate a country that has been blocking the Armenian border’s pathway since more than a century ago and whose conditions for an opening are unacceptable. Europe must convince Turkey of the essential need to acknowledge the first genocide of the 20th century and that its behavior so far disagrees with the values of Europe.

While the Armenian are gathering this week end to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, they discuss the future of the Turkish-Armenian relationships and the conditions of a possible reconciliation.
Since 90 years ago, the Turkish-Armenian relations have been featured by enmity and distrust. Turkey continues to reject the word ‘genocide’ to identify the 1915 events and would rather insist on the epoch war context and assert that the deportation of Armenians was motivated by security matters. In 2001, a heroic group of Turkish and Armenians decided to get together in the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. The purpose was not to replace the official diplomacy but highlight the condition out of which the conflicts emerged with the aim of resolving them. However, the shadow of the genocide was looming up above all their works. The Turkish and Armenians of that commission decided then to request the opinion of the International Center for Transitional Justice. This Center declared, to the Turkish satisfaction, that as those events occurred before the legal definition of genocide, Ankara would not have to pay financial or territorial compensations, but the Center reasserted the genocide intentions of the Ottoman Empire - a statement that pleased the Armenians.
This opinion satisfies everyone and should be used by the governments to constitute the basis for a reconciliation. Then, an effort should be made to develop trade and open the border. The Bush administration should lend a hand to do this.

The United States regards Yushchenko as a strategic partner. He became their favorite candidate two years before the elections. His second visit confirmed his absolute loyalty to Washington whose instructions he is willing to follow. The United States continue with its policy of consolidation of geopolitical pluralism. They are afraid of Russia reestablishing itself as a big power and as an anti-western power. According to them, an important step to avoid that is obstructing a rapprochement between Russia and Ukraine. They are not interested in a serious conflict between our two countries but only in creating tensions. The main reasons of the United States promoting Ukraine’s joining NATO are the need to send Ukrainian soldiers to the “red-hot” points and, also, to have Ukraine buy US armament. They also need Ukraine to strengthen their control within NATO; Ukraine will be a vassal of the United States. With such partners, the United States will be able to obstruct the Europeans’ independence wishes regarding armament and foreign policy. Having Ukraine as a NATO member is a US-Polish plan to contain France and Germany.
I think US investments in Ukraine will increase although they will not be very important due to the significant number of the Ukrainian-Polish Diaspora and their indulgency towards Yushchenko. The economic ambiance is not very good, corruption is big, the judicial system does not work well and it is going to be used to fight the political opposition.
Yushchenko’s wishes to turn Ukraine into a “regional leader” and to be a geopolitical alternative to Russia depend on that financial support. Many European or US politicians want to use Ukraine to expand their geopolitical influence.
The visit of the president to the United States was a reward for a credit granted to the “orange revolution”. How is it going to pay for the rest? It is hard to say. There are two tendencies in the Ukrainian policy: a pragmatic policy and a patriotic one to which we can add the willingness to preserve power at all costs. One of these two tendencies will prevail.

Right now there is too much talking about both the formation of a civil society in terms of law and its integration in the international community. Out of consideration for international laws and regulations, it is really important to re-establish a historical justice. The geopolitical and strategic matters will not be settled without first solving the issue of the Armenian territories of a prior-to-the-revolution Russia. The March 16, 1921 Treaty between the Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia and the government of Kemalist Turkey is a clear example of the breach of the peoples’ rights. It must be borne in mind that since the summer of 1920, there were two government in Turkey: one in Ankara led by Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk); and another one internationally recognized in those days - the Constantinople government. In the first part of the Treaty, Russia factually recognized the superiority of the Turkish decisions about the international conventions and the principles approved by the UN. In the second part - about the Black Sea and the straits - there are a number of articles not accomplished any more. On page 8, Russia recognized the zone controlled by the Kemalists in March, 1921, as an integral part of the «Turkish territories». Neither then nor now is there a single justification for this in terms of international law.
The Nakhitchevan province was part of the first Republic of Armenia since 1918, and of the Armenian part of the Czarist Russia since 1828. Mount Ararat (on which Noah’s Ark would run aground) was part of this province, of which Turkey took possession. Then, from February 9, 1924, Nakhitchevan became an autonomous republic within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan. This treaty conflicts with the Vienna Convention «on the laws of international treaties». The rights of the Russian, Armenian, Kurdish and Greek peoples have not been respected. So, the said treaty must be annulled or revised. It equally opposes the Statement of the Human Rights stipulated by the UN in 1948.
Together with the Armenian National Club Miabanutiun, we advocate the creation of a program aimed at settling the issue by stages. The first would consist of a Russian-Turkish agreement including the right for the descendants of the inhabitants of those regions to return, and then the right to re-establish our historical and cultural patrimony, the creation of an economic entity and the restoration of the old Christian churches.

It is clear that the economic dimension of the US-Russian relationship has a strong potential for mutual gain. Russia’s economic future will depend on its options and today it is in a dilemma: either it follows the state model and an economic recession takes place or it opens its economy, integrates it into the world economy and develops. We hope Russia chooses the second alternative.
It is necessary that Russia leaves its protectionist policy behind. It will allow developing competition and the entrepreneur spirit and it will also benefit the Russian economy. It is the future that Russia and its friends want to build. The United States wants to see a strong and democratic Russia that can be a model for the other countries of the region. A win-win situation has to be developed instead of a game with a null balance as some say. Russia still has to make some improvements: reduce its democracy, reform monopolies, build democracy and fight corruption.
The United States supports Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) but, in order to achieve it, Moscow will have to make efforts to combat protectionism and to further protect intellectual property. Russian has already taken some steps but there is still work to do. The energy sector is another field in which we can all win. The US companies could provide the capital needed for the development of Russian gas and oil industries. Recently, we have witnessed a rapprochement between Russian and US companies in this field but the uncertainty around Yukos and the steps taken to reaffirm the State control over the energy sector halt these advancements.
The WTO and the energy sector are two examples of the kind of reforms that are necessary. The arbitrary implementation of the law is the safest path towards economic bankruptcy. The United States are interested in Russia becoming a real economic power and, for that, it has to reform itself.

What to do with Russia? Many articles have been published in which some authors compare the current situation with the bloody years of the Stalin regime while others think that the Russian government is trying, although slowly, to normalize the situation. Those who know how life was under Stalin will never accept this comparison with the Russia of Vladimir Putin. The Goulag no longer exists and one of Putin’s main adversaries, Kodorkovsky, has the chance to write political articles from prison and to have vast support. The truth about the war in Chechnya is available to those who want to know what is happening there.
The problem is not the result of Putin’s authoritarianism but to the fact that the Russian society is in crisis and does not want to reconsider its current positions.
New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof sees in Russian the premises of a fascist evolution of the type of Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal. I think that the comparison with post-war Turkey would be fairer. Turkey - which had lost the war and was living in chaos - saw an authoritarian leader, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), implement radical reforms and build, with Turkish nationalism as its foundation, a led democracy that is already several generations old.
The army has protected the State when it has been threatened by Islamism (mainly Kurdish), separatism and radical leftist movements. Freedom of speech continues to be a problem. The power holds the direction of the economy, as Putin currently does, and it is not solving the Kurdish problem.
Turkey, like Russia, faces problems inherited from the past such as the Armenian genocide that is not acknowledged by society. Germany, for its part, has analyzed its past but Japan has not and the former colonial powers have not apologized in that sense either. That is the case of Belgium and the issue of the massacres perpetrated in Congo during the rule of King Leopold II. Turkey is a loyal partner of Europe; it stopped the USSR and helped in stabilizing the Middle East; and it has a lot of natural resources.
For these reasons, the democratic West has not been able to have a significant influence over Turkey. The recent events are the result of Turkey’s desire to become a full member of the European Union.
The emergence of a semi-authoritarian regime, based on personality cult (Putin or anyone else), is inevitable in the current historic circumstances. We should not expect or demand a complete democratization of Russia or a radical revision of its past but it does not mean that we have to stop urging Russia to respect civil liberties. The only way to achieve it is strengthening our friendship ties with Moscow and to understand that time is the best ally in the democratization of a former empire. The process in Russia can take years.

We are contemporary witnesses of the U.S.’s strategy aimed at controlling the gas and oil communication and transportation pathways from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea Areas. What once used to protect the oil pipelines and adjacent facilities is now utilized to establish a total military and strategic control of the region. A militarization plan is underway. Obviously, the American friends have not failed to remember that their associates will receive political and international assistance without fail.
One of the targets is facing any possible Iranian incidents in the nuclear sphere. The creation of two military naval bases by Baku and the Kazakhstan brook have been foreseen. Large military constructions will control the route bridging the Caspian southern and northern harbors thus blocking the Iranian ports.
Contrary to President Azeri’s official statements, it is evident that his country has been unable to oppose Donald Rumsfeld’s demands and proposals.
The General Staff of the Caspian Guard operation shapes soldiers, has new radars available and has installed new telecommunication stations the range of which covers Iran, Armenia or the Russian coasts of the Caspian Sea. Underlying conflicts strike nations in the region, such as Georgia and Azerbaijan. Troops and bases will be available without the UN’s authorization. It is the work of the same strategists operating in Yugoslavia or Iraq.
We should not forget that Azerbaijan’s legislative elections will take place this year, which will be crucial for the present government and for the future program of the west strategists. Experienced men from Ukraine and Georgia must help to it. The west politicians’ arguments to achieve a rapprochement between Armenia and NATO will be this organization’s guaranteeing role in relation to the European Union. The «Stratfor» (Strategic Forecasting) analytical center has suggested that Armenians change radically their foreign policy and join the United States, in which case, the United States will promise Erevan the use of NATO as a platform for discussions with Turkey.

This visit to Russia is very important for us. We are very grateful for the help given to Argentina and we will soon celebrate the 120th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. In spite of the crisis of 1998 in Russia and the crisis of 2001 in Argentina, our economies develop and we have left the political crisis behind. We are pleased to see that many companies of our two countries want to work together. More than 30 businesspeople representing almost all the sectors of the Argentinean economy will accompany me during my visit. I should meet with Prime Minister Mijail Fradkov, Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov and with leaders of the Federation Council and the Duma.
Russia has the largest reserves of hydrocarbons and energy sources of the planet, and as to economic growth, it places second only behind China. It is a link between Europe and Asia and its development will create a huge market with a high purchasing power. The Russian people have always had a creative and spiritual potential and they have never remained with their arms folded. We are convinced that Russia will play an important role in the international scene.
I think Moscow has great chances to organize the Olympic Games and this organizational project in only one city is unique. I feel a huge respect for the Russian people and I wish them peace and prosperity.

Most of all, George W. Bush must understand that he was the guest of the whole state of Georgia and all of its citizens. The U.S. President was not personally visiting Saakashvili as our President wanted us to believe. Bush knew that there are two poles in Georgia: those of the Saakashvili’s group and the Labor Party members. He has enthusiastically written to me two times. He must admit that Saakashvili has discredited the west values: those of democracy. He has practically become a dictator who directs his country with the aid of a corrupt clan, just as His predecessor Chevardnadze did. When the Tbilissi revolution took place in November 2003, it was us who should have assumed the power according to the election outcome. The Gallup Institute had recognized we had 76% of the votes but then a farce was managed. Today, people have eventually understood the reason why. According to surveys, the president’s fall was dramatic. He admitted to have lost 25% from his original 63%. In fact, he had 14% of the votes while I had 26%. He has not fulfilled any of his promises, the lari (monetary unit) has devalued and that makes retirement pensions remain the same though someone might believe they increased. Everything is on sale and 200 000 people have lost their employments. If those people were not on our side, they already are. The situation has become revolutionary once more. Far from being united the government is composed of groups each defending their own interests. This has led to the assassination of former President Zurab Jvania. Right now, we are trying to join forces with the opposition and get the various groups together, but the situation might soon turn uncontrollable. The presidential elections should have been made in April if Chevardnadze had not left. I had been nominated candidate in October 2003 and that is still valid.
Vladimir Putin did not consult with us and that was not fair. From that point of view, Americans are smarter as they examine different possibilities. That is the reason of their success in the post soviet area. I am saying this as a graduate of the Diplomatic Academy of the USSR Foreign Ministry.
The new power acts in a cruel and amoral way when they do not pay the retirement pension to the former president. But crying over Edward Ambrossievitch (Chevardnadze) is also amoral when his fortune could well feed 100 000 pensioners.

The audiences of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Commission in relation to John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the UN allow to unmask the campaign driven to bring him into disrepute. These audiences also show the need to amend the confirmation process of the Senate’s nominations - an objective so much politicized nowadays that has departed away from its constitutional definition.
John Bolton is now charged with having blocked the career of an intelligence agent, whom we will call «Mr. Smith», as Bolton disapproved of the conclusions of the latter. Most of the accusations are really associated with actions I have taken and not Bolton’s actions, which have been indirectly presented. It is true that many times I complained to Smith’s higher-ups about his work. I would have liked to take the oath and say it but they refused to hear me. Frequently, the Senate’s audiences become the right tool to perpetrate political murders as is the case when destroying a candidate. I was myself a victim of this in 2001. I was also forced to tolerate the rumors set on by moral cowards.
Bolton is charged with having wanted to get confident information and complain about an analyst who politicized his reports. Bolton is a competent person who deserves confirmation of the post he has been proposed for. This situation is an example of the monstrous operation used to confirm posts in the Senate and reminds us of our duty, during war time, to replace all the intelligence service members who affect others with their bad work.

Robert Mugabe is the African Slobodan Milosevic. He embodies the worst aspects of the Cold War and the “war against tyranny”. Like Milosevic, who switched from communism to fascism after the Cold War, Mugabe switched from being a revolutionary to being a tribal dictator. The big difference is that Milosevic is in prison and Mugabe is not.
Zimbabwe’s dictator could give lessons to Milosevic and Vladimir Putin about electoral fraud. He falsified the results of the last three elections in only five years. During the most recent ones, he prohibited the entrance of foreign reporters into his country, he banned demonstrations under penalties of 20 years in prison and, as the government controls the distribution of food, whoever opposes him may face starvation. But it is no longer only priests who oppose his government. For that reason, Archbishop Pius Ncube became the target. Ncube had said that the elections had been manipulated and they were.
The presence of Mugabe in power is a challenge for the pro-democracy doctrine of George W. Bush. At the moment, he cites his struggle against racism and colonialism to avoid international criticism. Likewise, he can count on the support of South African Thabo Mbeki who, living in the shadow of Nelson Mandela, does not want to confront someone who continues to be considered one of the “freedom fighters” of the 20th century. Anyway, any international sanction would be useless without South Africa.
What to do? Although the death of John Paul II overshadowed the elections in Zimbabwe, there is, however, a “John Paul” option: an African Pope would facilitate putting pressure over African dictatorships. An African Pope could serve as inspiration to Africa like John Paul was for Eastern Europe. It would be a first step to put Mugabe in prison.

The Senate’s Foreign Relations Commission is ready to vote in relation to John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The democrats will vote against and the republicans are expected to vote for him. However, the former launched a defamatory campaign against the State’s Undersecretary two weeks ago. In fact, when senators exercise their right to vote, they must bear the following elements in mind:
 John Bolton has worked for two years on subjects related to his future responsibility.
 This experience has led him to adopt lucid positions in relation to the UN. He is right when saying that the UN has provided very little evidence of unity regarding the objectives, which its founders originally entrusted the organization with. However, the UN’s major achievements have been reached when the operations were conducted by Washington. We need a man to bear this in mind in order to change the UN.
 Bolton is a staunch supporter of George W. Bush’s policies in the State Department. This has earned him a lot of enemies who now want to see him go to pieces.
Bolton is the right person to fit the post. He is competent, determined and used to managing institutions hostile to President Bush.

John Bolton once declared that the removal of the ten top floors of the UN headquarters would not make a big difference. But during the hearings of this week in the Senate, he promised to «establish closer ties between the United States and the UN» as well as to «restore confidence» between Washington and the international body. We, in the UN, do not precisely need this enchanting John Bolton. We need the old John Bolton. Only a few times along its history has the UN been able to have the consensus of its Security Council’s members, and the U.S. major diplomatic advancements have had nothing to do with the UN. The problem lies on the right of veto, which the permanent members of the Security Council enjoy - this system puts them on a par with the United States, which is generally not the case. If the UN has to continue to be a political forum to oppose the United States, the U.S. diplomats would have then to push it to one side rather than strengthening it. The UN is not able to prevent humanitarian disasters, or remove regional peace threats or stop terrorist supporting states. Large international organizations such as WTO, European Union, NATO have little to do with the UN. The United States must remember that the UN’s agenda includes its destruction and that sometimes this is more easily done from within.

Only in North Korea and the Vatican the personality cult is still practiced. The death of Pope John Paul II would have been the proper framework for the mourning scenes worthy of the death of Kim Il Sung. However, in the case of the “Holy Father”, this liturgy is accompanied by the rhetoric similar to Saint Sulpice, typical of Catholicism. In this regard, in Los Angeles Times, former president Lech Walesa, thanked God for having given a Pope to Poland. He further stated that he owed it all to him and felt orphan now.
In the midst of the hagiographic flood, the editorial of Joseph Samaha in As Safir was conflicting. With talent and certain degree of pleasure for provocation, the Lebanese intellectual made a comparison between the two religious leaders whom their followers present as “fighters for freedom”: John Paul II and Osama Bin Laden. Both of them had the same pattern: Ronal Reagan; and the same opponent: the Soviets. John Paul II expelled them from Poland and Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan. To carry out their mission, both men relied on the most reactionary forces of their religious community and fought against the reformists.
Following this line of refreshing reflection, Father Adolf Holl, suspended to divinis by cardinal Josef Ratzinger (recently elected Pope under the name of Benedict XVI), said in Die Presse that the conclave is arranged beforehand. As confirmed by the documents drafted by the Curia for the previous election, the cardinals receive a grading from the papal nuncios and the popes-to-be are carefully selected. The discussions are an illusion, just as the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Serguei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Investigations of Moscow, commented in Gazeta SNG about the trip of the new Ukrainian president to the United States. Viktor Yushchenko firstly expressed his appreciation for making him a king. However, this alliance is fragile. For Washington, Ukraine is a pawn that weakens Russia, but Yushchenko will hesitate whether to make his protector happy to remain in power whatever the price might be or to serve his national interests.
The US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow, for his part, stated in Moscow Times that his country needed a strong Russia. Hence, it was suggested to refute the analysis, widely disseminated by the Russian media, that Washington manipulated the colored revolutions to surround and weaken Russia. However, this statement was not pacifying at all: the diplomat indicated next what would be a “strong Russia” for him, that is, a country that was open to world trade and agreed to supply its hydrocarbon for the development of the United States.

The daily Finnish Turun Sanomat, the Estonian writer and politician Jaan Kaplinski indicated that what happens at this moment in Russia is not the return to Stalinism but rather an authoritarian improvement comparable to the one developed by Ataturk in Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century. Instead of feeling offended, it would be better to assist Russia to promote at the same time its recovery and civil liberties.
In an interview with RIA-Novosti on the eve of his arrival to Moscow, Argentinian vice-president, Daniel Scioli, emphasised on common views and how the two countries complement each other. Argentina and Russia recently experienced a severe economic crisis and both of them were able to recover. Argentina sells foodstuffs to Russia and purchases agricultural machinery and fertilizers. Russia, in particular, responds to the energetic needs and an equal association enables Buenos Aires to get rid of Washington’s protection.

Finally, in the Christian Science Monitor, colonel Austin Bay denounced the rigged elections in Zimbabwe and maintenance in power of Robert Mugabe. By considering that the United States had temporarily given up from triggering a colored revolution, he hoped that the election of a black Pope would clear the situation, as John Paul II did in the case of Poland.