Dec 312014
 

“On Moral Education”

In a recent lecture, I mentioned the word “genocide” and I realized that youths in the audience responded by talking about “constructed ideologies” such as mentioned and when I talked about ethics of memory. So I found the opportunity to elaborate my thoughts, as I quote here. In summary, I believe that morality is not the matter of culture or of knowledge. After all, the Nazis, who made all this inhuman crimes, were not without impeccable education. The Germany of the 30s, the homeland of Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Kant and Hölderlin had a remarkable school and university system in the world. Yet, that did not stop the savagery. Something similar happens with the slaughtering of radical Islamism, Bin Laden and many of their fighters were not illiterate or uneducated. Many of savage executioners, like jihadists today, are scientists (sic) or lawyers, meaning that they are generally literate. Such a finding is bothering all the heirs of the Enlightenment and of Voltaire, who believed that the advancement of knowledge means progress and civilization. The Nazi elite, the Bolsheviks, or jihadists had education and culture in the twentieth century. It therefore turns out that one can be uneducated and be good, or one can even be cultivated and be villainous. Today, we need Moral Education. This is not only the matter of school, knowledge or information. It is above all the relationship with our family roots, and the relationship with our parents. A good professor is not good enough to change things, but the children, before attending to schools, also have to have a balanced relationship with the family. They have to learn what is good and bad. This is the base of moral education.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on culture

My article, which was published at Paraskinio December 27th, titled
On Moral Education

In a recent lecture, I mentioned the word "genocide" and I realized that youths in the audience responded by talking about "constructed ideologies" such as mentioned and when I talked about ethics of memory. So I found the opportunity to elaborate my thoughts, as I quote here. In summary, I believe that morality is not the matter of culture or of knowledge. After all, the Nazis, who made all this inhuman crimes, were not without impeccable education. The Germany of the 30s, the homeland of Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Kant and Hölderlin had a remarkable school and university system in the world. Yet, that did not stop the savagery. Something similar happens with the slaughtering of radical Islamism, Bin Laden and many of their fighters were not illiterate or uneducated. Many of savage executioners, like jihadists today, are scientists (sic) or lawyers, meaning that they are generally literate. Such a finding is bothering all the heirs of the Enlightenment and of Voltaire, who believed that the advancement of knowledge means progress and civilization. The Nazi elite, the Bolsheviks, or jihadists had education and culture in the twentieth century. It therefore turns out that one can be uneducated and be good, or one can even be cultivated and be villainous. Today, we need Moral Education. This is not only the matter of school, knowledge or information. It is above all the relationship with our family roots, and the relationship with our parents. A good professor is not good enough to change things, but the children, before attending to schools, also have to have a balanced relationship with the family. They have to learn what is good and bad. This is the base of moral education.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on culture
Dec 292014
 

“The hubris of populist-sophists”

Populism is a movement that thrived in the early 20th century in Russia, and since then until today it has become a political tool in the world. A basic advantage is its easy adaptability of the wishes of the crowd. That is to say, if the people ask for extraordinary and unfeasible things, populist politicians immediately respond and proclaim such requests to be granted.It is not significant for them whether the requests are unfeasible or not. It is not important for them whether they would actually implement any of their promises when populists come to power. What is important for them is to seize the power and dominate. Populists resemble ancient sophists, who never believed in the truth, but only in the power of persuading someone by any means rather than aiming for the truth. Plato and Socrates stigmatized this tactics, and became their main opponents. Perhaps today, we should review the matter through these moral eyes of both leading Greek philosophers. That is to fight against the populists – sophists of SYRIZA proposing arguments of Truth policy. The people need to know about the European reality that the sacrifices paid until now is restoring the confidence of the markets in Greece slowly but firmly, by the virtue of the stabilization of the economy and especially of the new programs multibillion-entering to the market for the period 2014-2020 through the adoption of the new NSRF programs. The people have to know that the institutional stability and consciousness is the fundamental precondition for the constitutional balance of a country. The world should recognize the brave efforts made for the benefit and strengthening of their country. And particularly, the Greek MPs need to know what they owe to the Truth, to their arms and to their shields, so that their decision will be much stronger than fear and threats that SYRIZA unleashes everyday. Each form of incrimination, terror of advisory body, shall not happen. The Republic will not be defeated by populism. We will not fall into the misery of sophism. The Republic will emerge stronger through the fight against the abuse of populists- sophists.

My article, which was published at Εleytheros Typos December 27th, titled
The hubris of populist-sophists.

Populism is a movement that thrived in the early 20th century in Russia, and since then until today it has become a political tool in the world. A basic advantage is its easy adaptability of the wishes of the crowd. That is to say, if the people ask for extraordinary and unfeasible things, populist politicians immediately respond and proclaim such requests to be granted. It is not significant for them whether the requests are unfeasible or not. It is not important for them whether they would actually implement any of their promises when populists come to power. What is important for them is to seize the power and dominate. Populists resemble ancient sophists, who never believed in the truth, but only in the power of persuading someone by any means rather than aiming for the truth.  Plato and Socrates stigmatized this tactics, and became their main opponents. Perhaps today, we should review the matter through these moral eyes of both leading Greek philosophers. That is to fight against the populists - sophists of SYRIZA proposing arguments of Truth policy. The people need to know about the European reality that the sacrifices paid until now is restoring the confidence of the markets in Greece slowly but firmly, by the virtue of the stabilization of the economy and especially of the new programs multibillion-entering to the market for the period 2014-2020 through the adoption of the new NSRF programs. The people have to know that the institutional stability and consciousness is the fundamental precondition for the constitutional balance of a country. The world should recognize the brave efforts made for the benefit and strengthening of their country.  And particularly, the Greek MPs need to know what they owe to the Truth, to their arms and to their shields, so that their decision will be much stronger than fear and threats that SYRIZA unleashes everyday. Each form of incrimination, terror of advisory body, shall not happen. The Republic will not be defeated by populism. We will not fall into the misery of sophism. The Republic will emerge stronger through the fight against the abuse of populists- sophists.
Dec 242014
 

The Diplomat Mr. Xi Jinping

 

Welcoming the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, on 10 November impressively for the first time, the Prime Minister of China, Xi Jinping, demonstrated a remarkable diplomatic skill. It is no coincidence. Let’s take a look at the progress so far, and it shows that this is the philosophy of the political practice. Despite his refusal on human rights and basic democratic freedoms in his country, as well as his permanent criticism against the Western Values, however, he shows pragmatic and capable identity on his foreign policy. During the G20 Summit in Australia, Mr. Xi Jinping achieved a free trade agreement to conquer new markets with billions of dollars thrown to them. A few days prior to it, he had achieved something similar with South Korea. Correspondingly, he did the same with Burma and at the meeting of the Asian States (APEC). Along with such economic agreements, he also proposed a pact of friendship. Mr. Xi Jinping argues that “China will never destroy the others” and emphasizes “enough to look at history to understand that countries tried and thrived through the power, and failed.” He also stresses that China is dedicated to the service of peace. Besides, almost every economic agreement signed at the same time was also signed with treaty of friendship with each partner country. This attitude of Chinese Prime Minister, though not eliminating the eternal fears of their neighbors especially in Southeast Asia, he manages to mitigate concerns and to impose the constant supremacy of Beijing to a region through the diplomacy of peace, and is ready to become the locomotive of growth in the decades to come. Furthermore, Mr. Xi Jinping cultivates a constant willingness to cooperate with others in different fields. While correcting the immediate ecological risks by agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide or by taking measures to reduce military and aviation risk, Chinese Prime Minister breaks the image of the rigid communist ideologists and shows a smiling face as the Head of State and harmony in the international scene.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on culture

My article, which was published at Paraskinio December 20th, titled
The Diplomat Mr. Xi Jinping.

The Diplomat Mr. Xi Jinping

Welcoming the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, on 10 November impressively for the first time, the Prime Minister of China, Xi Jinping, demonstrated a remarkable diplomatic skill. It is no coincidence. Let’s take a look at the progress so far, and it shows that this is the philosophy of the political practice. Despite his refusal on human rights and basic democratic freedoms in his country, as well as his permanent criticism against the Western Values, however, he shows pragmatic and capable identity on his foreign policy. During the G20 Summit in Australia, Mr. Xi Jinping achieved a free trade agreement to conquer new markets with billions of dollars thrown to them. A few days prior to it, he had achieved something similar with South Korea. Correspondingly, he did the same with Burma and at the meeting of the Asian States (APEC). Along with such economic agreements, he also proposed a pact of friendship. Mr. Xi Jinping argues that "China will never destroy the others” and emphasizes “enough to look at history to understand that countries tried and thrived through the power, and failed.” He also stresses that China is dedicated to the service of peace. Besides, almost every economic agreement signed at the same time was also signed with treaty of friendship with each partner country. This attitude of Chinese Prime Minister, though not eliminating the eternal fears of their neighbors especially in Southeast Asia, he manages to mitigate concerns and to impose the constant supremacy of Beijing to a region through the diplomacy of peace, and is ready to become the locomotive of growth in the decades to come. Furthermore, Mr. Xi Jinping cultivates a constant willingness to cooperate with others in different fields. While correcting the immediate ecological risks by agreeing to reduce carbon dioxide or by taking measures to reduce military and aviation risk, Chinese Prime Minister breaks the image of the rigid communist ideologists and shows a smiling face as the Head of State and harmony in the international scene.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on culture
Dec 192014
 

My article, which was published at Elefteros Typos December 18th, titled “Homeland and Consciousness’’

Homeland and Consciousness

The word “homeland” is a notion that burdens and is often used with different perspectives. Usually this is done based on political beliefs. However despite the polygenic characteristic of the word, there is something in it that remains unchanged. Homeland is the open aggregation of some territorial, historical and cultural elements that ensures a creative identity of the citizen and the country in the balanced association and workshops. Anything that disturbs this balance is a threat to the homeland and to one more thing: the country is not only the emotional root. It is also the conscious root. It is the cultivated and digested knowledge of who I am, and what my connection with the other is. Everyone seems to have difficult times in terms of patriotic consciousness. And during such time just like we are today, we all need to think about the good of the country, the balance of our country. And this means that we must understand where the position of Greece is today. Every movement or populist pseudo-threat that would jeopardize the country’s position in the Euro zone is wrong. Each hypocritical policy that threatens to return our country back to balkanized situation is wrong. Now is the time for taking brave and patriotic decisions. Closing ears to the political alerts that wishes to detach our country from the European Union, and then allowing the developments of the logics of “revolution”, “Che Guevara” or of any other similar terms are fairy tales. The history proved that it is time to stop telling our children fairy tales, just as the great poet, Manolis Anagnostakis, says. It is time to face our children as mature citizens. It is time to tell them the truth, and only the truth. There is no anti-European solution. There is only European solution. Let us not fall asleep, the citizens with pseudo-wizards of SYRIZA. Let us hear the voice of patriotic conscience. Let’s convey this and to the members who express them. This is for the good of Greece.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Elefteros Typos December 18th, titled "Homeland and Consciousness’’

 Homeland and Consciousness

The word “homeland” is a notion that burdens and is often used with different perspectives. Usually this is done based on political beliefs. However despite the polygenic characteristic of the word, there is something in it that remains unchanged. Homeland is the open aggregation of some territorial, historical and cultural elements that ensures a creative identity of the citizen and the country in the balanced association and workshops. Anything that disturbs this balance is a threat to the homeland and to one more thing: the country is not only the emotional root. It is also the conscious root. It is the cultivated and digested knowledge of who I am, and what my connection with the other is. Everyone seems to have difficult times in terms of patriotic consciousness. And during such time just like we are today, we all need to think about the good of the country, the balance of our country. And this means that we must understand where the position of Greece is today. Every movement or populist pseudo-threat that would jeopardize the country's position in the Euro zone is wrong. Each hypocritical policy that threatens to return our country back to balkanized situation is wrong. Now is the time for taking brave and patriotic decisions. Closing ears to the political alerts that wishes to detach our country from the European Union, and then allowing the developments of the logics of “revolution”, “Che Guevara” or of any other similar terms are fairy tales. The history proved that it is time to stop telling our children fairy tales, just as the great poet, Manolis Anagnostakis, says. It is time to face our children as mature citizens. It is time to tell them the truth, and only the truth. There is no anti-European solution. There is only European solution. Let us not fall asleep, the citizens with pseudo-wizards of SYRIZA. Let us hear the voice of patriotic conscience. Let's convey this and to the members who express them. This is for the good of Greece.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Dec 162014
 

My article, which was published at Paraskinio December 13th, titled
” Cameron and Immigration”

Many European leaders, particularly in Paris and Berlin, were annoyed by the position of Cameron for curved and controlled immigration, especially that of Eastern Europe. The attitude of the British Prime Minister was characterized rather improper by the political sphere. The oppositions have already gone through the European Court of Justice who accused him and he just like his fellow countrymen, do not respect the rules and the philosophy of the European Union, in fear of spreading eurosceptic far-right. This myth is known in all such cases. But not with such guilty ideologies that will be found proper arguments and solutions in anarchist immigration, and that threatens Europe and gives food to demagogic followers of any political introspection. That is why the European Union did not disagree violently with Cameron by pointing out that we ought to open dialogue on the subject without dramatizing it. Rather, it begins to change the climate in the European institutions and Brussels to understand that we need another migration policy. Besides, a month ago the European court had ruled the ” benefit tourism” migration. It is now obvious that Europe if not otherwise see the issue, is threatened with serious consequences. After years of unregulated arrival of those who came through the borders, it is time to review again the Schengen Agreement. There should be better control of European borders. And yet: it must stop migration of those European citizens within the Union entering to more developed countries in order to seek only for social benefits without working there. There should be stricter control on unregulated installation of the deprived people while correcting the law of independent workers, the abundance of which is a wound on illegal and unjust exploitation of public resources of the States that would simultaneously result in the increase in unemployment among workers-citizens. The attitude of Cameron is required be considered. Further, it should be treated with realism about good and healthy continuity of the European dream.
Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Paraskinio December 13th, titled 
" Cameron and Immigration"

Many European leaders, particularly in Paris and Berlin, were annoyed by the position of Cameron for curved and controlled immigration, especially that of Eastern Europe. The attitude of the British Prime Minister was characterized rather improper by the political sphere. The oppositions have already gone through the European Court of Justice who accused him and he just like his fellow countrymen, do not respect the rules and the philosophy of the European Union, in fear of spreading eurosceptic far-right. This myth is known in all such cases. But not with such guilty ideologies that will be found proper arguments and solutions in anarchist immigration, and that threatens Europe and gives food to demagogic followers of any political introspection. That is why the European Union did not disagree violently with Cameron by pointing out that we ought to open dialogue on the subject without dramatizing it. Rather, it begins to change the climate in the European institutions and Brussels to understand that we need another migration policy. Besides, a month ago the European court had ruled the '' benefit tourism” migration. It is now obvious that Europe if not otherwise see the issue, is threatened with serious consequences. After years of unregulated arrival of those who came through the borders, it is time to review again the Schengen Agreement. There should be better control of European borders. And yet: it must stop migration of those European citizens within the Union entering to more developed countries in order to seek only for social benefits without working there. There should be stricter control on unregulated installation of the deprived people while correcting the law of independent workers, the abundance of which is a wound on illegal and unjust exploitation of public resources of the States that would simultaneously result in the increase in unemployment among workers-citizens. The attitude of Cameron is required be considered. Further, it should be treated with realism about good and healthy continuity of the European dream.
Demosthenes Davvetas
Dec 122014
 

Demosthenes Davvetas exhibition ‘’Photo-Graphies’’ in Marseille.

Poet, writer, painter and performer, Demosthenes Davvetas explores various creative forms, inspired by the thinking of the ancient poet Simonides: “Poetry, is a painting that speaks and painting, is a silent poetry.”
Demosthenes Davvetas works in three dimensions, which each carries its own function, a cornerstone of its pluriform works.
In the beginning, there are Demosthenes Davvetas’ poems that are representing what the photographed subject meant to him and inspired him. Then the artist’s photography (Warhol, Basquiat, for example), the subject or scenery, represent the reality. Finally, the painting reveals the artistic hand of Demosthenes Davvetas. It brings its share of abstraction at work, his silent and intriguing part.
For the exhibition ” Photo- Graphies ” that devoted to him for the first time the European House of Photography, Demosthenes Davvetas presents a series of photographic works also painted, ” poeticized ” retouched, to which he gives a new dimension, material and depth that reflect the extent of his artistic field.

Demosthenes Davvetas's photo.
Demosthenes Davvetas's photo.
Dec 122014
 

” The strategy of Putin’’

It was in February 2007, during the annual conference on international security that Vladimir Putin introduced the doctrine of New- Russia. This was the same logic that he repeated a number of times before, and also in the last G8 meeting in Sochi, because of the penalties that his country had due to its policy on the issue of Ukraine. So what is the essence of this strategy? For the Russian president after the end of the first Cold War between the USSR and the USA, the United States didn’t change their attitude and continued to promote their interests without regard for their associates, especially the Russians. Apart from anti-missile systems installed in Poland, they openly supported the former president of Germany in anti-Russian action, recently supported the neo-Nazi rulers of Ukraine and the jihadist’s opponents of Assad in Syria and Iraq. This US behavior becomes the basis of the strategy of Putin. Basing on the vision of New- Russia, he starts to justify his own choices with his patriotic sense of defense against American aggression. If here we add, of course, from wherever in the Middle East, America has been to, they left chaos, disorder, and ruins and greater insecurity and civil wars (thus allowing Islamists to strengthen), then it can easily be understood that the conspiracy theorists syndrome, becomes the basis of Putin’s strategy. For this old KGB agent, the conspiracy is a food of strength. So he uses it on two fronts: on the outside and the inside. Because thanks to the conspiracy psychology he gathers the Russian people around him. So with the occasion of the US, he dominates his country without any opposition. The geological concern reinforces his vision of the New Russia, by making himself a hero and reinforcing his strategy. According to it, at the practical level, Russia will respond to any aggressive act of the United States. That’s why Putin, since the Georgian war in 2008, came to the annexation of the Crimea in March, or even as a response to ” neo-Nazi ” Ukrainian government seeking annexation of other territories with Russian-speaking population. Today’s Russia is not the old Soviet Union, nor is a carrier of a world ideology or global economic system. It is a strong developing country. Although it has a strong rhetoric of ” moral ” of advantage against “legal nihilism” of the West, however, it lives and acts in today’s modernity, being a pioneer in research issues, technology, manufacturing and scientific innovations. The patriotic Putin’s strategy, that of New-Russia strengthens while the interior of the country adds many external enemies. That’s why the Russian president has proposed a ” global dialogue and compromise ” that will ensure the respect and sovereignty of each State, and take into account together with the Western interests and those of Russia and developing countries. His militant’s proposal has not been heeded. But should it, for the good of the global balance?

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Elefteros Typos December 11th, titled " The strategy of Putin’’

It was in February 2007, during the annual conference on international security that Vladimir Putin introduced the doctrine of New- Russia. This was the same logic that he repeated a number of times before, and also in the last G8 meeting in Sochi, because of the penalties that his country had due to its policy on the issue of Ukraine. So what is the essence of this strategy? For the Russian president after the end of the first Cold War between the USSR and the USA, the United States didn’t change their attitude and continued to promote their interests without regard for their associates, especially the Russians. Apart from anti-missile systems installed in Poland, they openly supported the former president of Germany in anti-Russian action, recently supported the neo-Nazi rulers of Ukraine and the jihadist’s opponents of Assad in Syria and Iraq. This US behavior becomes the basis of the strategy of Putin. Basing on the vision of New- Russia, he starts to justify his own choices with his patriotic sense of defense against American aggression. If here we add, of course, from wherever in the Middle East, America has been to, they left chaos, disorder, and ruins and greater insecurity and civil wars (thus allowing Islamists to strengthen), then it can easily be understood that the conspiracy theorists syndrome, becomes the basis of Putin’s strategy. For this old KGB agent, the conspiracy is a food of strength. So he uses it on two fronts: on the outside and the inside. Because thanks to the conspiracy psychology he gathers the Russian people around him. So with the occasion of the US, he dominates his country without any opposition. The geological concern reinforces his vision of the New Russia, by making himself a hero and reinforcing his strategy. According to it, at the practical level, Russia will respond to any aggressive act of the United States. That's why Putin, since the Georgian war in 2008, came to the annexation of the Crimea in March, or even as a response to '' neo-Nazi '' Ukrainian government seeking annexation of other territories with Russian-speaking population. Today's Russia is not the old Soviet Union, nor is a carrier of a world ideology or global economic system. It is a strong developing country. Although it has a strong rhetoric of '' moral '' of advantage against “legal nihilism” of the West, however, it lives and acts in today's modernity, being a pioneer in research issues, technology, manufacturing and scientific innovations. The patriotic Putin's strategy, that of New-Russia strengthens while the interior of the country adds many external enemies. That's why the Russian president has proposed a '' global dialogue and compromise '' that will ensure the respect and sovereignty of each State, and take into account together with the Western interests and those of Russia and developing countries. His militant's proposal has not been heeded. But should it, for the good of the global balance?  

Demosthenes Davvetas
Dec 092014
 

” Asian and European Diplomacy “

On November 4, much to the surprise of the Western countries, China and Japan resumed the political, economic and military dialogue, at the meeting between Chinese President, Xi Jiping, and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In September 2014, the Japanese government announced the nationalisation of the Senkaku islands, of which ownership is also claimed by China, the two major Asian countries started the Cold War. Hot maritime events, airspace violations by China and violent anti-Japanese manifestations, a series of these events has led Japan to consider China as their main enemy. Then, Japan cooperated with the Americans, increased their defense budget and everything smelled like gunpowder. From July 2014, they launched another rationale: although a joint statement formalised the dispute between these countries, it is still initiated in the multilevel dialogue. This is a diplomacy lesson to the Europeans, who, like the Americans, give priority to sanctions. One would ask: great diplomacy, but what about these islands governed by the victorious nation of the war, namely Japan, since 1895. These islands are uninhabited, and the main interest is the rich oil reserves as well as of gas. How, then, do these two superpowers think to solve the dispute? It was neither by postponing the solution permanently as the Western countries, especially the British, do, nor by implementing the dangerous policy of sanctions, as was done by Russia to Ukraine. This is the open secret, China and Japan solved by deciding to co-exploit the land. Fifty-fifty is the rationale for the oils. This is the lesson from Asian diplomacy, a perception that is neither rigid nor sclerotic as is usually applied in the European diplomacy. We, the Western countries, should learn the secrets of the China-Japan dialogue to improve the global policy.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Paraskinio  6th December, titled " Asian and European Diplomacy

On November 4, much to the surprise of the Western countries, China and Japan resumed the political, economic and military dialogue, at the meeting between Chinese President, Xi Jiping, and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In September 2014, the Japanese government announced the nationalisation of the Senkaku islands, of which ownership is also claimed by China, the two major Asian countries started the Cold War. Hot maritime events, airspace violations by China and violent anti-Japanese manifestations, a series of these events has led Japan to consider China as their main enemy. Then, Japan cooperated with the Americans, increased their defense budget and everything smelled like gunpowder. From July 2014, they launched another rationale: although a joint statement formalised the dispute between these countries, it is still initiated in the multilevel dialogue. This is a diplomacy lesson to the Europeans, who, like the Americans, give priority to sanctions. One would ask: great diplomacy, but what about these islands governed by the victorious nation of the war, namely Japan, since 1895. These islands are uninhabited, and the main interest is the rich oil reserves as well as of gas. How, then, do these two superpowers think to solve the dispute? It was neither by postponing the solution permanently as the Western countries, especially the British, do, nor by implementing the dangerous policy of sanctions, as was done by Russia to Ukraine. This is the open secret, China and Japan solved by deciding to co-exploit the land. Fifty-fifty is the rationale for the oils. This is the lesson from Asian diplomacy, a perception that is neither rigid nor sclerotic as is usually applied in the European diplomacy. We, the Western countries, should learn the secrets of the China-Japan dialogue to improve the global policy.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Dec 052014
 

THE POLITICS OF OBAMA

After so many years spent in the US presidency, it would be useful to make a close observation of the US President’s foreign policy to date. As regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with his movements being indecisive, gave no solutions and rather complicated the situation. He stated that it would solve the problem in one year. Yet, the proposal for the two independent states, that is to say, Israel and Palestine to live side by side peacefully, seems an unattainable dream today. As the Israeli invasion continues, the Gaza Strip continues to be so blocked both by sea and air, two million Palestinians remain breathless and trapped between the Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas and the Israeli army. On the other hand, the relationship between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, remains unchanged. The perception of the US President is entirely rational that he believes in separating religious states and the democratic administration of institutions. It seems naive in front of the logic of the Islamists who do not believe in democracy and see Islam as their only governing principle. And also, the early withdrawal of the US army from Iraq showed that it was a mistake, as well as the war of Bush, because Islamists became stronger despite the intervention. But in Syria or in Egypt, such policy did not work. In the first case: he failed to decide between two options, namely either to overthrow Assad’s military or to help the dissidents to strengthen their military force. In the second case: he abandoned Mubarak, but just a little later he was compelled to find out that General Al-Sisi was much tougher than the former Egyptian president. The promise of Obama in 2009 in Cairo that the US would reconcile with the Arab world completely failed. The people of the United States considered it the weakness of indecision and the Arabs interpreted it as hypocrisy. Accordingly, it also happened with Russia. He wanted to give momentum to Russia-United States relations again, but the Democrat Obama does not have the same ideas as the “Tsar” Putin. The US President supported the protesters in Kiev without consent of the European Union, and plays alone on the Ukrainian paper with no success so far. And as long as Putin remains popular as the other power, Russia-United States diplomacy today is nonexistent because everyone is adamant in his positions. In contrast, what Obama has been successful is in the relations with China. He opened with the ongoing dialogue, avoided taking a position in China-Japan dispute over the nationality of the Senkaku islands (always protecting his friend Japan), and even managed to be the coveted protector of all Asian countries against China’s expansionism. So the United States became the central power in the Pacific. This is a tremendous diplomatic and economic success since there is a large global growth in that area. It is, therefore, the Asian policy to provide the answer to the question of whether Obama will be recorded in history as a great peacemaking diplomat or as an indecisive politician.
Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Elefteros Typos today 4th December, titled "The The  politics  of  OBAMA"
THE POLITICS OF OBAMA

After so many years spent in the US presidency, it would be useful to make a close observation of the US President’s foreign policy to date. As regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with his movements being indecisive, gave no solutions and rather complicated the situation. He stated that it would solve the problem in one year. Yet, the proposal for the two independent states, that is to say, Israel and Palestine to live side by side peacefully, seems an unattainable dream today. As the Israeli invasion continues, the Gaza Strip continues to be so blocked both by sea and air, two million Palestinians remain breathless and trapped between the Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas and the Israeli army. On the other hand, the relationship between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, remains unchanged. The perception of the US President is entirely rational that he believes in separating religious states and the democratic administration of institutions. It seems naive in front of the logic of the Islamists who do not believe in democracy and see Islam as their only governing principle. And also, the early withdrawal of the US army from Iraq showed that it was a mistake, as well as the war of Bush, because Islamists became stronger despite the intervention. But in Syria or in Egypt, such policy did not work. In the first case: he failed to decide between two options, namely either to overthrow Assad’s military or to help the dissidents to strengthen their military force. In the second case: he abandoned Mubarak, but just a little later he was compelled to find out that General Al-Sisi was much tougher than the former Egyptian president. The promise of Obama in 2009 in Cairo that the US would reconcile with the Arab world completely failed. The people of the United States considered it the weakness of indecision and the Arabs interpreted it as hypocrisy. Accordingly, it also happened with Russia. He wanted to give momentum to Russia-United States relations again, but the Democrat Obama does not have the same ideas as the "Tsar" Putin. The US President supported the protesters in Kiev without consent of the European Union, and plays alone on the Ukrainian paper with no success so far. And as long as Putin remains popular as the other power, Russia-United States diplomacy today is nonexistent because everyone is adamant in his positions. In contrast, what Obama has been successful is in the relations with China. He opened with the ongoing dialogue, avoided taking a position in China-Japan dispute over the nationality of the Senkaku islands (always protecting his friend Japan), and even managed to be the coveted protector of all Asian countries against China's expansionism. So the United States became the central power in the Pacific. This is a tremendous diplomatic and economic success since there is a large global growth in that area. It is, therefore, the Asian policy to provide the answer to the question of whether Obama will be recorded in history as a great peacemaking diplomat or as an indecisive politician.
Demosthenes Davvetas