Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Kissinger on Russian Foreign Policy


This week I had the opportunity to hear Henry Kissinger speak at a conference in honor of the famous Soviet diplomat Andrei Gromyko in Washington, DC. Kissinger along with Anatoliy Gromyko, the son of the late Andrei Gromyko, revisited many important meetings and events that took place during the Cold War. Kissinger explained that people often mistake the Cold War era as a time when foreign affairs were simple and predictable since the world was divided into two camps. However, he stressed that it was not simple but a very complex relationship that managed to avoid direct military confrontation between the two super powers.

Kissinger also stressed how important Russia is even today. It is connected to Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It is the largest country in terms of area and resources in the world and it has nuclear capability. Kissinger criticized U.S. policy towards Russia after the Cold War.
It is no secret that Kissinger was a strong critic of U.S. policy from the 1990's to the present. Most notably was his opposition to the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state, which he described as a "foolish act." Regarding the Balkans, he made additional public statements that the Serbs and Croats should be allowed to join their respective countries and that the Rambouillet Agreement which would have forced the Serbs to give all its territory access to NATO ground forces, "was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form."
Regarding the current US president, Kissinger joked, "Obama was my second choice." Although he stressed he disagrees with most of Obama's policies, he did compliment recent actions of the Administration for getting U.S.-Russian relations back on track. He also noted that the current policies Obama has taken towards Russia were the same as what he advocated to both candidates prior to the 2008 presidential elections.

As for Afganistan, it was noted that Andrei Gromyko was initially opposed to sending Soviet troops to Afganistan. Kissinger also made a point that he disagrees with the current policies in Afganistan regarding the US policy to create a centralized government. Although he supports the goal of eliminating the threat of terrorists using Afganistan as a launch pad of attacks against the US, he said outside forces can never unite the various tribal regions.

Several questions were put to Kissinger during the conference regarding Russia's recent disapproval of much of U.S. policies with Iraq, Iran, etc. Kissinger explained that it is not that they disapprove, but that the Russians are concerned that the United States does not know what it is doing in these areas. The worry is that the Americans will come in and leave the place worse than when they arrived. When one sees the resulting chaos in Kosovo, Iraq and other places where the US intervenes, the Russians may have a point.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The Walking Saint

While attending the Divine Liturgy at our local Serbian parish on November 15, it was announced by our priest that + Pavle, His Holiness, Archbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovac and Serbian Patriarch passed away. Although he was ill for years, you could feel the sense of loss among the people.

Founded by St. Sava, the Serbian Church traces its Apostolic roots to St. Andrew by its recognition in 1219, by the Church of New Rome (Constantinople). At the time, Medieval Serbia was arising as a powerful new country founded on territory that was given to migrating Slavs by the Roman Empire. Although deeply rooted in Roman culture and inheriting its Faith from the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the establishment of a Serbian Church made it possible for the Serbs to properly embrace Orthodoxy by allowing the people to worship in their native Slavic language. This in turn enabled the Serbs to preserve this Faith through centuries of invasions and occupations by foreign enemies bent on destroying the Serbian nation.

Since then, the history of the Serbian people was a story of countless martyrs and persecution. In more recent modern history, the story has not been much different. However, after the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990's began, Serbs found themselves ill prepared for what was awaiting for them. After decades of Communism, +Pavle was the spirtual counter weight to atheism and other post modern problems in Serbia. At at time when many Diaspora Serbs here in the United States were lamenting Serb losses during the 1990's and most recently Kosovo, +Pavle reminded us in one of his homilies, that more Serbs are lost to abortions than all the wars. His message was true. Only a true revival of Serbian Christianity can take Serbia into the 21st Century.

Just a few hours before the Church announced the loss of a great Patriarch, I received an email with the latest article written by Srdja Trifkovic called, "A Tale of Two Subversives Battling Christophobia in California and Serbia. The timing of his article could not be more relevant as we all discovered the next morning of the passing of the Patriarch. It is also now the beginning least officially, the process of who will fill the vacuum left behind to lead another generation of the Serbian flock.

Unfortunately the Serbian political elite are missing the boat. While they still chase the rainbows promised by European integration, Western civilization is being lost to the modern world, as the center of gravity shifts eastward towards Eurasia. The next Patriarch will have an undaunting task to lead the Serbian people spirtually. Already the acting Patriarch Amfilohije will give Serbs hope to continue in the right direction through his own wisdom and humility, but it is yet unknown as to who will assume this ancient throne after the elections. It would be a great disappointment if the next Church leader decides to follow the easy path of materialism and Euro "integration."

A friend of mine working at the Serbian Patriarchate once described to me the situation of the Patriarch who was beginning to fade. He told me it was like watching a candle when it burns to the end. The flames shoot higher just before the candle goes out. Let us hope that the next Serbian Patriarch can guide Serbs back to spirtual Salvation.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

New Martyrs?



I don't know if this article is available online yet, so I decided to post it here rather than just link to it. I thought it is an interesting read. I often use what is happening in Serbia after its legacy of communist Yugoslavia as an analogy of what will happen in the United States. Some of the insane policies created by the communist regime are being played out by Washington! There are many examples, but the one I use often is how Belgrade allowed the Albanians to settle on territory in Serbia. As their population increased, the government just appeased the situation, granted autonomy and provided free services. Eventually this came back to haunt Serbia. Same is happening with immigration in the United States.

The original article will be printed in the CHRONICLES: A MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN CULTURE, December 2009, pp. 20-22


NOTE: This article was released just hours before the passing of His Holiness, Serbian Patriarch +Pavle. TRP

A Tale of Two Subversives
Battling Christophobia in California and Serbia
by Srdja Trifkovic

The intention of postmoderns to destroy real people, with their natural loyalties, traditional morality, and inherited cultural preferences, is the same everywhere. Its specific manifestations may be different in the United States and Serbia—the homes of our two interlocutors and my good friends—but the underlying motivation is identical. It is Christophobia, the incubator of countless secondary pathologies that are imposed and celebrated on both sides of the Atlantic under the label of diversity. Having suffered countless disasters and progressive disintegration during the modern era, how may Christian civilization be effectively revived? “For true-blooded Western conservatives, this is the overarching question of their political life,” says Greg Davis, as we savor boutique vodkas in downtown Santa Monica. “Conservatives are forever trying to get back to something better, sounder, nobler, truer. But how far back? A decade, a century—a millennium?”

I met Greg five years ago, while he was producing and directing the must-see documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know. He is a soft-spoken convert to Orthodoxy, in his mid-30’s, with a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford and an abiding sense that our civilization is collapsing. Western conservatives, he says, are hoping to save the key institution of the West—namely, Christianity—but Christianity did not originate in the West, and therein lies the crux of the matter: “The development of the West since 1054, in opposition to the Orthodox East, was a revolutionary act. The West, at its core, is revolutionary; hence the shouting of our conservatives for history to stop, while intermittently effective in slowing the slide, has proven vain. The West’s defining act was the fundamental innovation of the filioque. The fruit of the schism was apparent in successive heresies and rebellions, which led to the wars of religion that would kill millions and tear Europe apart. Later subversives would translate the revolutionary logic into decidedly unchristian contexts such as the French and Bolshevik revolutions, with monstrous results.”

While the unraveling of Western Christianity has been under way for a thousand years, it gained a new head of steam in our time. With Vatican II, Greg says, Roman traditionalists were dealt a tremendous blow, and they are still suffering its consequences. Meanwhile, “The more traditionally minded Protestant denominations are now sprinting toward Sodom, while the newer ‘Bible churches,’ holding the line somewhat more effectively on the moral front, show themselves very much of this world in their Dionysian revels featuring ‘Christian’ rock music and self-help philosophies about how to succeed in the world of mammon without really trying. The job of shoring up what remains of traditional Western Christianity is, needless to say, not getting any easier.”

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, does not lend itself to the political realm, precisely because its kingdom is not of this world. It is impossible to turn Orthodoxy into a “movement” in the modern political sense, yet the Orthodox view on most political issues today largely tracks the views of traditional Roman Catholics and Protestants, in spite of their theological and ecclesiological differences: “Even in a decidedly Protestant and “revolutionary” country such as the United States, the Orthodox easily recognize the practical wisdom embodied in a document such as the Constitution and its principle of limited government. They are more than anyone averse to the deification of political figures and of the state that has been the bane of the modern era. But they are by nature ill-adapted to navigating the turbulent waters of modern politics, which grow ever more frenzied and anti-Christian.”

The Orthodox countries still outside the Western orbit have shown themselves routinely outclassed in the geopolitical great game to extend U.S.-style materialism and “democracy” to the far reaches of the galaxy. Davis points out how the Serbs have consistently underestimated the malevolence of U.S.-led designs on their country and culture, and how Russia naively undertook a series of Western-inspired “reforms” in the 1990’s that devastated the country: “Now, however, Russia is pulling herself together. Vladimir Putin, regularly portrayed in Western media as a cross between Nicholas I and Darth Vader, refuses to let his people commit suicide along the lines of Western Europe, which continues to renew its vote of no confidence in itself. With the ancient enemy of both Western and Eastern Christianity, Islam, once again making inroads into both, Western conservatives should see Russia and Orthodox civilization generally as a natural ally. Yet prominent conservatives continue to support the U.S.-led prosecution of Russia. Their support for an ever-expanding NATO, for the missile shield, and for Western-sponsored color-coded revolutions is the support for a revolutionary power that recognizes no limit to its hegemony.”

During the Cold War, it was still possible to regard the West, the adversary of revolutionary communism, as a netconservative force in the world, but no longer. Western, and especially American, conservatives are now in the illogical position of defending the actions of the world’s leading revolutionary power. For Western conservatives to remain “conservative,” Davis concludes, they must be willing to support the cause of the few genuinely conservative forces left in the world—namely, those Orthodox nations still willing and able to resist indefinite Western cultural and geopolitical expansion.

Bosko Obradovic is a Serb of Greg Davis’s age who is resisting both prongs of that expansion. He is one of the founders and leaders of Dveri (The Doors, www.dverisrpske.com), a Belgrade-based NGO distinguished from most others by two key facts: It does not get a penny from George Soros, and in its many social and cultural endeavors it seeks the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church and spiritual guidance from its hierarchs. Bosko is a philosophy and literature graduate in his mid-30’s, a teacher, librarian, and father of three. He was in the news recently for making a key contribution to the cancelation of the planned “gay-pride” parade in downtown Belgrade: “The organizers had everything lined up. The government of Serbia was supporting them because the ruling Democratic Party thought this was one way to show to Brussels that we are progressive enough for E.U. membership. All of the major media, all of the Western-funded NGOs, and countless fashionably enlightened public figures were on their side. This was supposed to be yet another proof of Serbia’s terminal fall, its readiness to sell its soul for the elusive ‘European integration.’”

In the end the parade was called off because of security concerns. Its organizers were offered another location, but they rejected it. This, Bosko says, indicates their real agenda: They did not merely want to march; they wanted to provoke. “Their goal had never been to protect anyone’s ‘human rights’ or to protest ‘discrimination.’ Their goal was to promote a clearly defined ideology, lifestyle, and value system, and symbolically to impose it on Belgrade and on Serbia by taking over, however briefly, the old city center. Their objective was also to assert their political power as a privileged and protected group that promotes modernity. Their goal was to inflict a devastating blow on the traditional spiritual, moral, and cultural code, to present it as marginal, obsolete, and doomed to die out. Last but not least, calling the event off amidst a blaze of publicity was a call to their sponsors to continue and even increase their largesse, because the job is not done: Serbia is still its ugly, reactionary old self.”



Bosko and his friends have been called some nasty names since the parade was canceled in mid-September. There have been calls for a ban on Dveri, supposedly for violating recently enacted “antidiscrimination” legislation, which was drafted completely in accordance with E.U. guidelines. He says attacks are “a compliment to all of us who are determined not to give up on the value system that has kept our people alive through the centuries.” He is nevertheless concerned about the future: “We appear to be well on the way to 2084, when totalitarian NGO types will impose their blueprint for the eradication of our traditional spiritual, moral, and national identity. The NGO elite claims to act for and on behalf of ‘the West’ and enjoys the status of protected species, but no such protection will be extended to anyone if they have their way. Our “democracy” is heading for the abolition of the freedom to think differently from the high priests of Western postmodernity. Just look at the media treatment of Metropolitan Amfilohije, our acting Patriarch, for daring to quote the Scripture on sodomy! Is it not paradoxical? The Orthodox Church and all other mainstream religious communities in Serbia are asked to refrain from stating their position on this issue because doing so makes them liable to prosecution for advocating ‘intolerance.’”

Bosko Obradovic sees the problem in clear-cut terms. Either the Church will speak Her mind clearly and without euphemistic evasiveness, or else She will lose the purpose of Her existence as the saving community based on faith and the teaching of two millennia: “The Church as a whole and individual Christians are expected to refrain from taking a position if it does not conform to the standards of acceptable discourse as proclaimed by those who are not Christians, or—to be more precise—who are determined anti-Christians. Of course, Metropolitan Amfilohije and other bishops did not have any choice: Rather than ignore the intended moral and cultural onslaught, they spoke out clearly and authoritatively. Their authority comes from the Scripture and the Fathers, not from our ‘pro-E.U.’ government, or the ‘progressive’ NGOs, or their foreign mentors. They also condemned all forms of hate and violence, in accordance with the Christian principles, but they, and we, cannot accept a self-isolation that can only end in criminalizing any open profession of our faith.”

Bosko believes that the exclusion of the Orthodox Church from Serbia’s social and cultural life remains the final goal of the parade’s organizers and sponsors. He points out that the chorus of condemnation and indignant disgust against Metropolitan Amfilohije came simultaneously from the usual standard-bearers of “all progressive humanity”—Helsinki human-rights groups, sociology professors, foreign-sponsored “independent analysts,” Soros-financed media outlets—and all had a common accusation: By daring to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, Metropolitan Amfilohije is “objectively” condoning violence and promoting discrimination. Ergo he is guilty of practicing violence and discrimination, of inspiring “far-right groups and all other extremists”: “Their goal is to force the Church into internal exile, just like under communism. This goal is the raison d’etre of many NGOs in Serbia. They always react swiftly and indignantly when the Church adopts a position, treating it as something inherently illegitimate. The Metropolitan’s scriptural reference threw them into rage, as witnessed by the media conglomerate B92, which has assumed the role of ideological prosecutors and star chamber. His reminder that ‘the tree that bears no fruit is cut down’ was twisted in the best tradition of the French Revolution and Bolshevism.”

So what should be a believer’s position on homosexuality—or, for that matter, on any number of postmodernity’s sacred cows? Bosko Obradovic concludes that on this and every other social and political issue of our time, a distinct Christian position can and should be developed: “My faith does not allow it, and I do not want to mistreat, threaten, or discriminate against anyone. At the same time I am obliged to confess my faith, to bring up my children and to contribute to my society in accordance with what has been passed on to me—even if this means suffering legal punishment at the hands of the state.”

That punishment is coming soon to America and Europe alike, and Christians like Greg Davis and Bosko Obradovic are ready for it. They know that the earthly and temporal powers of the state can and should be recognized as imperative only to the degree that they are used to support good and limit evil. In America and Serbia alike, they both agree, a Christian may obey state laws only if such obedience does not demand apostasy or sin. We do not know which of my two friends will be the first to endure martyrdom, but I fear that both will. ¤

Srdja Trifkovic is the author of Defeating Jihad and The Sword of the Prophet