Με την κυρία Zeyno Baran την κυρία του κυρίου Μάθιου Μπράϊζα είμασταν οι πρώτοι που ασχοληθείκαμε εδώ και ένα χρόνο, εκ τότε έχουν γραφεί δεκάδες κείμενα της στην Ελλάδα και στο ελληνικό διαδίκτυο για το ρόλο της. Μας γράφουν αρκετοί αναγνώστες μας να ασχοληθούμε και να σχολιάσουμε το τελευταίο της άρθρο με αφορμή την νέα συμφωνία που υπέγραψε ο Έλληνας πρωθυπουργός Κώστας Καραμανλής με την Ρώσσο ηγέτη Βλαντιμίρ Πούτιν. Αυτό που μπορύμε να επισημάνουμε και προκύπτει καθημερινά από την σχετική ειδησεογραφίας και τις ανλύσεις που βλέπουν το φως της δημοσιότητας είναι ότι εκτός από το γεγονός πως καθημερινά εκείνο που γίνεται σαφέστερο είναι ότι πράγματι ενόχλεισε και ενοχλεί την αμερικανική νομενκλατούρα των γνωστών think tank που παράγουν πολιτική και εισηγούνται η πολιτική των ισορροπιών και σταδικαής απεξάρτησης από την σφαίρα επιρροής των ΗΠΑ που ακολουθεί ο Πρωθυπουργός -όχι η Υπουργός Εξωτερικών Ν. Μπακογιάννη υπερτονίζεται αυτό για να μην παρεξηγούμεθα και γίνονται υποτιθέμενες αυτονόητες ταυτίσεις πολιτικής- το μόνο που μπορούμε να κάνουμε είναι απλά να κάνουμε στο ευρύτερο κοινό γνωστό μέσω του site μας, το νέο της άρθρο της κυρίας Zenyo Baran το οποίο και παραθέτουμε αυτούσιο παρακάτω. Ότι ήταν προς το παρόν να κάνουμε το έχουμε κάνει. Την κάναμε γνωστή στο ελληνικό κοινό αποκαλύπτοντας τον ρόλο της από εκεί και πέρα ανέλαβαν άλλοι καταξιωμένοι συνάδελφοι και έφεραν στο φως της δημοσιότητας ακόμα περισσότερα στοιχεία για την κοινή δράση της μετά του προκλητικού συζήγου της κ. Μάθιου Μπράϊζα. Διαβάστε το σχετικό θέμα για το ρόλο της στο τρέχον φύλλο της εφημερίδας ΠΡΩΤΟ ΘΕΜΑ είναι κατατοπιστικό. Εσείς απλά διαβάστε και προωθείστε το συγκεριμένο άρθρο(από email σε email πάντα κάποιος ξέρει κάτι παραπάνω…) η εποχή που ζούμε μεταξύ των πολλών κακών που έχει δυστυχώς να επιδείξει έχει και κάποια καλά. έχει εκμηδενίσει τις αποστάσεις οπότε συνεχίστε την έρευνα μαζί μας και εμείς είμαστε εδώ 24 ωρες το 24ωρο να επεξεργαζόμαστε τα στοιχεία και τα ευρήματα σας. Επ ευκαιρία για ακόμα μια φορά θέλουμε να ευχαριστήσουμε τους αναγνώστες μας σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο για την εμπιστοσύνη και την στενή συνεργασία τους με το πρακτορείο μας.
April 15, 2005, 7:58 a.m.
An Unorthodox Orthodoxy
Eastern churches should break with Moscow
By Zeyno Baran & Emmet Tuohy
In Washington last week, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko received a heroâ€TMs welcome as he concluded a new strategic partnership with the United States and gave a historic address to a joint session of Congress. Throughout his visit, especially during talks with President George W. Bush, Yushchenko adhered to his main theme: the commitment of both countries to democratic values. While they discussed numerous issues of common concern, there was one item conspicuous by its absence from the agenda: religion. In Ukraine â€" and elsewhere in the Orthodox world â€" a struggle for freedom and independence is still being waged against the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington identified a fundamental divide between the areas represented by Catholicism and Protestantism in the West, and the Orthodox Church in the East. As recent events have shown, however, a more correct line can be drawn, with the Russian Orthodox Church representing the authoritarian status quo on one side, and the rest of Europe â€" including the other Orthodox traditions â€" representing freedom and democracy on the other.
In his controversial book
During the recent democratic revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the local branches of the Orthodox Church acted in full concordance with liberal democratic values, supporting the desire of people in these countries for political freedoms. However, they were resisted at every turn by the nationalistic Russian Orthodox Church, which is tightly tied to a Russian state that is still trying to reassert control over its former dominions.
Though not widely known, the structure of the Orthodox Church is highly conducive to local, responsive decision-making. Since the famous 1054 split with Roman Catholicism, the Ecumenical Patriarch (who has continued to reside in Constantinople/Istanbul over the intervening millennium) enjoys only a primus inter pares relationship with the autonomous patriarchs of individual countries. Over time, each national Orthodox Church thus became closely tied to the needs and desires of their people. However, as Ottoman political control receded over the 19th century, the influence of the Russian Patriarchate grew in keeping with the expansion of Tsarist and later Soviet power. While many churches were able to regain effective independence during the widespread clamoring for freedom that accompanied the fall of the Berlin Wall, pro-Russian elements have resisted such efforts.
In contrast, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, based in Istanbul, has acted as the leading voice in favor of freedom and democracy in the Orthodox world. A prominent promoter of interfaith ties and environmental issues (he has, somewhat unusually, been labeled “the green patriarchâ€), Bartholomew I has taken a special interest in the anti-authoritarian movement that has steadily gained steam in Orthodox countries over the last two decades. Standing at the center of coordination among all the Orthodox, he strongly supported the independence of the church in Estonia, which led to a major split within the Orthodox Church (between Russian and Greek churches). Today he is the key to the independence of the Georgian and Ukrainian churches, as well.
In Georgia, when the pro-reform movement took off in 2003, the independent Georgian Orthodox Church supported Mikheil Saakashvili, the young democratic reformer who successfully attained the presidency of the Georgian state. The Russian Church, however, has continued to oppose Saakashvili and his reforms, most notably by encouraging the separatists in Georgiaâ€TMs Abkhazia region to unite their church with the Moscow Patriarchate. (The Russian church is also supporting the criminal separatist regime in Moldovaâ€TMs breakaway region of Transnistria).
In Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), joined with Uniate Catholics, who practice the Orthodox rite but profess loyalty to the pope, as well as with evangelical Protestants, in supporting the Ukrainian peopleâ€TMs right to a free electoral choice. These churches were instrumental in inspiring and assisting the throngs of Ukrainians who took to the streets last year to protest election fraud, protests which ultimately led to the recognition of the victory of reformist candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential elections. Meanwhile, the Moscow Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church threw its full weight behind government candidate Viktor Yanukovych in a propaganda campaign that included the lending of icons to anti-Yushchenko marches and the dissemination of anti-Yushchenko leaflets at church services.
In the aftermath of Ukraineâ€TMs peaceful revolution, there have been calls for unification of the two branches; at a special sobor (assembly), the UOC-KP asked Yushchenko and Bartholomew I for their assistance in ending the division and providing true independence for Ukraine â€" politically and theologically. During a recent visit to Kyiv, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated the well-known position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which would allow the unification of the Ukrainian churches only if they continued in “canonical unity†with the Moscow Patriarchate, which means continued influence not only from the church leadership, but from the Russian government.
However, there is to be no exterminating the freedom bug caught by nearly the entire Orthodox movement. If the Moscow Patriarchate continues to support repressive regimes and separatist regions throughout the former Soviet Union, it will only add to its increasing isolation from a “Western civilization†that now extends to the borders of Russia.
â€" Zeyno Baran is director of the international-security and energy Programs at the Nixon Center, where Emmet Tuohy is a research associate.
