This initiative, launched by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikos Kotzias, paves the way for the establishment of an annual forum for dialogue, aiming to deepen cooperation among the key players in a region plagued by security challenges and destabilizing forces on the premise that no single country can tackle the problems of this day and age.

This Conference will stress the need for collective action as it is imperative to act together in order to safeguard security and stability for the entire region.

The so-called triangle of instability, formed by Ukraine to the apex and Libya and Syria/Iraq to the western and eastern corner respectively, has adverse effects on the Eastern Mediterranean, the wider Middle East and Southeast Europe. The ongoing refugee/migration crisis, extremism and radicalization are indicators of the current critical situation in the broader region.

The Rhodes Conference is based on a political vision; to build stability and security via joint initiatives and synergies in order to avert fragmentation and bring prosperity and peace.

This includes the growth of relations and movements, which will lead to higher levels of interdependence. That is the building of academic and cultural networks aimed at overcoming stereotypes and misconceptions, as well as people-to-people exchanges – bridges between cultures – that promote understanding and respect for diversity.

In the same vein, economic cooperation in a modern globalized world requires synergies and connectivity in the sectors of trade, energy and transport;

Our will is to achieve positive sum cooperation, aspiring to remedy uneven development and inequality, the root causes of turbulence and hatred.

Hence, the agenda of both plenary sessions on September 8th and 9th respectively, shall define the current challenges we are faced with in order to forge joint strategies to meet:

• challenges presented by the migration crisis, including spiraling humanitarian needs, inadequate asylum systems and threats to social cohesion,

• environmental/climate security challenges, through programmes for education, capacity-building and knowledge transfer on measures to prevent marine debris and develop environmentally sound water and waste management systems,

• challenges to maritime security, including piracy, human trafficking, terrorism, weapons trafficking, overfishing, pollution, and man-made and natural disasters, and

• ongoing threats to the region’s cultural and religious plurality, including the root causes of radicalization and violent extremism.

The Rhodes Conference for Security and Stability will seek to highlight the vital need for states to show a real commitment and political will to deter all these destabilizing forces that engender suffering and unrest threatening security and stability.”

Since globalization contains far-reaching implications for practically every facet of life, it is necessarily suggests the need to rethink key questions of intercultural communication, multiculturalism, cross-cultural education. The definitions of all these expressions is dynamic, evolving, and reflects the continual changes in our society. In broad terms, it is the ability to make and communicate meaning from one culture to another by the use of a variety of socially contextual symbols. All these thoughts have been questioned not only by philosophy, sociology, and history but also by the process of globalization. These are the concepts of Cosmopolitan view of world societies and cultures.

The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), is defined as: familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures: his knowledge of French, Italian, and Spanish made him genuinely cosmopolitan, including people from many different countries: immigration transformed the city into a cosmopolitan metropolis, having an exciting and glamorous character associated with travel and a mixture of cultures.

What does the notion of ‘cosmopolitization’ then have to say? And why is it so important to clearly distinguish it from the many ‘cosmopolitanisms’ (Kant, Hegel, Habermas, Nussbaum, Appiah, Benhabib, Held etc.) of European philosophy and extra-European histories of thought? Cosmopolitanism as a theoretical approach, provides fine descriptions of what it means to be and communicate as a global citizen, how to critically study interconnectedness within and across cultures, and how to embrace differences without glossing over them.

Cosmopolitanism can be understood as a socio-cultural condition, which is expressed in the conception of an open and cosmopolitan world. This condition is created from the base of processes linked to globalization, such as greater access to information and the development of communications and telecommunications. These processes facilitate a multiplication of social exchanges – including migrations – as well as cultural contacts which bring us closer to places and cultures which are physically and, sometimes, psychologically distant.

Cosmopolitanism has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political thought. All cosmopolitan beliefs share the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural and educational expression. Our interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, education and the like.

Within various levels of developmental ability, a cosmopolitan person can derive and convey meaning, and use their knowledge to achieve a desired purpose or goal that requires the use of language skills, be they spoken, written or electronically transformed. A literate person can mediate their world by consciously and flexibly coordinating meaning from one linguistic knowledge base and apply or connect it to another knowledge base.

Some critics contend that the multicultural argument for the preservation of cultures is premised on a problematic view of culture and of the individual’s relationship to culture. Cultures are not distinct, self-contained wholes; they have long interacted and influenced one another through war, imperialism, trade, and migration. People in many parts of the world live within cultures that are already cosmopolitan, characterized by cultural hybridist. As Jeremy Waldron (1995, 100) argues, “We live in a world formed by technology and trade; by economic, religious, and political imperialism and their offspring; by mass migration and the dispersion of cultural influences. In this context, to immerse oneself in the traditional practices of, say, an aboriginal culture might be a fascinating anthropological experiment, but it involves an artificial dislocation from what actually is going on in the world.” To aim at preserving or protecting a culture runs the risk of privileging one supposedly pure version of that culture, thereby crippling its ability to adapt to changes in circumstances (Waldron, 110; see also Benhabib 2002 and Scheffler 2007). Waldron also rejects the premise that the options available to an individual must come from a particular culture; meaningful options may come from a variety of cultural sources. What people need are cultural materials, not access to a particular cultural structure.

In response, multicultural theorists agree that cultures are overlapping and interactive, but still maintain that individuals belong to distinct societal cultures and wish to preserve these cultures (Kymlicka 1995, 103). Multiculturalism is a body of thought about the proper way to respond to cultural and social diversity.

In recent years practitioners in a wide variety of fields -scientific cooperation, academic research, business, management, education, health, culture, politics, diplomacy, development, and others- have realized just how important intercultural communication is for their everyday work. Fast travel, international media, and the Internet have made it easy for us to communicate with people all over the world. The process of economic globalization means that we cannot function in isolation but must interact with the rest of the world for survival. The global nature of many widely diverse modern problems and issues such as the environment, governance of the Internet, poverty and international terrorism call for cooperation between nations. Intercultural communication is no longer an option, but a necessity.

Because important decisions in business, politics, education, health, and culture these days usually affect citizens of more than one nation, the question of whether communication between people of different nations is effective and whether all parties emerge with the same understanding is of crucial importance. Individuals who deal with people from other cultures want to learn how to improve their performance through improving their communication skills. Numerous resources have sprung up to meet this emerging market in the business, academic, education and international relations communities: leading authors have written books and articles on the topic; business services provide consultation for improving the conduct of international business; universities and other educational institutions offer programs or degrees in Intercultural Communication and Cosmopolitism; and researchers have established international journals and academic societies specializing in research on intercultural communication. In fact, intercultural communication has become a business in itself. Following is just an example: Richard Lewis Communications is a company owned by the author of the popular When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures. They offer business consultancy, run “cross-cultural training” courses and workshops, publish papers and workbooks, and develop software for intercultural communication. Richard Lewis provides a truly global and practical guide to working and communicating across cultures: ”Working in a global team and dealing with business partners or customers across cultures raises challenges and demands new attitudes and skills. Our experience shows that without the right approach, cultural differences greatly reduce effectiveness in the early stages of a relationship. But active management of the internationalization process and a conscious effort to acquire new skills will release fresh sources of competitive advantage. Lack of knowledge of another culture can lead, at the best, to embarrassing or amusing mistakes in communication. At the worst, such mistakes may confuse or even offend the people we wish to communicate with, making the conclusion of business deals or international agreements difficult or impossible.”

Through the exploration of other cultural identities opportunities are provided to recognize points of similarity between cultures that may be hidden from view or not immediately apparent. The focus is on exploring where cultures meet and developing knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that enable interaction and negotiation between cultures. This process of coming to an understanding of others requires self-reflection and the confrontation and deconstruction of sometimes deeply embedded stereotypical views. It challenges both students and faculty to understand how views are constructed and to appreciate that views about oneself are constructed in relation to how we see each other.

Multicultural education is an interdisciplinary, cross-curricular education that contributes to the preparation for students to live and work in a diverse environment. As cross-cultural appreciation and respect become increasingly important in a globalized, interdependent world, it is imperative that students develop an understanding of cultures outside of their own. Multicultural education provides an avenue for schools to develop cultural awareness among their student bodies. Intercultural/ Multicultural education is about developing an understanding of and valuing others and about understanding of and valuing self. It provides opportunities to gain an insight into one’s own knowledge, limits, doubts and attitudes by confronting, interacting and negotiating with other cultures. This requires developing an understanding of why we see the world in the way we do. It allows students to break through their prejudices and get to know something of the actual person behind the stereotype. These types of educational programmers help young people recognize the sensitivity of talking about strongly held beliefs, and the consequences of not handling them with care, particularly the problems that occur when disagreement escalates into conflict or violence.

Perhaps the most common invocations of the label ‘cosmopolitan’ in recent philosophical literature have been in the disputes over cultural cosmopolitanism. Especially with disputes over multiculturalism in educational curricula and with resurgent nationalisms, cultural claims and counter-claims have received much attention. The cosmopolitan position in both of these kinds of disputes rejects exclusive attachments to parochial culture. So on the one hand, the cosmopolitan encourages cultural diversity and appreciates a multicultural blend, and on the other hand, the cosmopolitan rejects a strong nationalism. In staking out these claims, the cosmopolitan must be cautious about very strong ‘rights to culture,’ respecting the rights of minority cultures while rebuffing the right to unconditional national self-determination. Hence, recent advocates of ‘liberal nationalism’ (e.g., Margalit and Raz,) or of the rights of minority cultures (e.g., Kymlicka) generally seem to be anti-cosmopolitan. But the cosmopolitan’s wariness towards very strong rights to culture and towards national self-determination need not be grounded in a wholesale skepticism about the importance of parochial cultural attachments. Cosmopolitanism can acknowledge the importance of (at least some kinds of) cultural attachments for the good human life (at least within certain limits), while denying that this implies that a person’s cultural identity should be defined by any bounded or homogeneous subset of the cultural resources available in the world (e.g., Waldron).

Cosmopolitan cultural identity is introduced across the global and the local, encompassing questions of cultural mastery, mobility, traveling, tourism, and home and nation-state attachments. Cosmopolitanism, containing but also furthering the notion of interculturalism, could constitute an alternative to or complement for ‘cross-cultural education’ in theory or practice, especially via its element of ‘multiculturalism’. The explicit reference of cosmopolitanism to the development of the individual, in contrast to institutionalized frameworks, opens up further usefulness for intercultural education. The cosmopolitanism with the concept “to be concerned for another as I am concerned for myself” — is integral in nature: it contains the conceptual agenda that is common to most cosmopolitan perceptions; it allows them to exist alongside one another; and it encourages a normative, systematic outlook in man – the concern for another for the “good of the whole” – since people are essentials in one connected human system.

This approach is pragmatic in that it suggests a practical solution not only to interpersonal challenges but also to intercultural challenges. The “vision of the good” that overwhelms society demands treatment first before structural changes. A suitable response requires an educational, moral and conscious shift among the citizens of the world. Each person must recognize that his destiny is dependent on his relations with others, meaning anyone outside himself. When openness and concern are placed for others at the top of society’s agenda, when that will be the defining principle for curriculum at the university, there will be immediate progress in the society. People will form an open approach to the world within themselves – a kind of cosmopolitan prism through which they can judge their actions toward fellow people – and it will bring about the change in spheres such as economy, migration, environment, communication, security and more. The cosmopolitan integral education can provide an alternative to the various private affairs. This is a massive mission, that is obligating citizens of the world to engage in mutually beneficial relationships rather than relationships of advantage and distance. Today, even from the most egoistic perspective it is worthwhile to be concerned for the public since future is dependent upon people of the world. (Kapstein & Rosenthal 2009)

Susie Michailidis Ph.D. Professor is Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Indianapolis, Athens.

Bibliography:

- Benhabib, Seyla. The Claims of Culture: 
Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press 2002

- Kapstein, E. B., & Rosenthal, J. H.Ethics and International Relations. Farnham, Ashgate, 2009

- Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

- Lewis, Richard. When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993.

- MacIntyre, Alas dair. “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” In Theorizing Citizenship, ed. Ronald Beiner , 209-228. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

- Margalit, Avishai, and Joseph Raz. “National Self-Determination.” Journal of Philosophy 87 (1990): 439-61.

- Mason, Andrew. “Special Obligations to Compatriots.” Ethics 107: 427-447,1997.

- O’Neill, Onora. Bounds of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

- Rex, Martin and Reidy, David, eds. Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia?. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.

- Tan Kok-Chor. Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

- Waldron, J., “Superseding Historic Injustice,” Ethics, 103(1): 4–28, 1992.

- Waldron, J. “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative,” in The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995.

What does this mean? For those who subscribe to the relevant American-fed scenario, adopted by Wall Street Journal and other systemic global media, the next big thing could be the rebellion of the technocrats, the upheaval of common sense against obsolete mentalities and inefficient party politics.

As a friend of mine -a proponent of this view- says, “it’s going to be you and me hitting the streets, because we cannot take it anymore.” How this becomes popular? How allegedly advanced people could use simplicity to change things? Could an “intellectual indignados” rebellion be the solution for Greece?

Probably, this question will be left unanswered until we see it in practice. But, perhaps what remains important is that people of various professional and intellectual backgrounds are appearing having radical voices amongst their Facebook peers and in summer gatherings. More and more ‘commentators of life’ are turning themselves into Soc Nets columnists with an increasing number of followers who are willing to pick up a debate and comment on current affairs.

This up-scale, low voice indignant appetite seems to run horizontally in Greek society, having ‘common sense’ as its front running banner. So, why in Greece, change continues to come in the form of an obligatory process, instead of being part of an effort to move the country forward?

Having intellectuals, academics, people of the mind rallying -and probably being engaged in innovative activism- is an attractive thought. But who are these people and how far are they willing to go? What could be the logistics of this ‘revolution’? Would it include clashes of demonstrating suited technocrats and bearded scientists against SYRIZA’s leftish crowd and PAME’s rally soldiers? Well, despite its graphicness, this couldn’t possibly end well. And if it did, the question would be: for whom? What’s the end game? How this could turn into actual and -most importantly- enlightened governance?

Another question: “Who benefits?” an old –probably lefty- professor of mine in London used to ask, when we were discussing the deregulation of British Telecom and the energy grid. The answer is key, in order to think about it wisely and of course, to frame the perspective within current Greek situation.

In the case of Greece, coming up with an answer is not an easy task, almost impossible, if we stop considering, for instance privatisations as something more than a state revenue boost. Of course, a privatisation state chief flying on private planes, owned by a state property buyer is not something that assists towards the justification of the process.

Although not necessarily the best-case scenario, I think the way out of the Greek crisis will be once again political, even canonical. It will not emerge out of illuminated technocrats, who will rally, expressing a higher level of discontent towards inefficiency and old partisanship. This agenda alone, although could suffice to overthrow a government in the minds of people – and providing it does not constitute a post-modern coup d’ etat-, it does not offer a viable alternative solution for three reasons: first, it would lack popular support, especially amongst the unemployed and those who were severely hit by austerity, second, it would need to outsource its political organisation to questionable centres of power and third, it would cause a bold juxtaposition with the representatives of the old status quo who are trying to save what is left from their glorious past.

As long as mainstream politics is not up to it, the Greek problem will not meet its solution. My view is that Greeks have lived for too long under state protectionism; this makes them less flexible to organise the restart, grasp the opportunity of the crisis and change their lives in a country that offers everything in flux, not to say anything about changing the country through revolt.

Nevertheless, although solution will have to come from the mainstream, improvements of the presiding model are strongly required; perhaps by allowing some responsible technocrats and realism-strong intellectuals pushing their way into the mainstream.

However, to manage that, the ruling political cast should stop behaving as old dogs refusing to learn new tricks. Or if they continue to do so, they could just simply crawl away to die.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Founder-Editor of alyunaniya.com

The rhetoric suggesting the replacement of ‘Grexit’ with ‘Grecovery’ is nice, albeit lacking political and – most importantly – real life substance.

Truly, psychology is a great part of economic progress and an essential ingredient of a success story not only in national politics, but at individual level too. However, the critical question, whose answer could dictate the strategic target, is: whose psychology needs improvement? Foreign investors’, local politicians or the people’s?

Greeks are usually extrovert and communicative. Even in the last three years, during which they have lost a great deal of their income and almost 3 out of 10 are out of a job, there’s a lot of talk amongst citizens regarding their problems and limitations, incomes lost; they cite even specific figures to illustrate their point; they are not even embarrassed to mention restrictions they have placed upon their lives in order to cope: less vacation, less dining out, even less consumables.

These are some of the talks they prefer to have face-to-face. Online, they prefer to curse politicians.

Since 2010, Greek Facebook has been transformed from a social platform of triviality into a forum for the exchange of serious, bitter and primarily personal views on the crisis.

Government and politicians’ behaviour rarely escape scrutiny and criticism in the social networks’ realm. These days, common sense and the wisdom of the masses seem to be the Prime Minister’s staffers primary adversary.

Amongst the most cursed statement online is former PASOK minister Theodore Pangalos’ saying that all Greeks are responsible for the deficits and the national debt. “We ate the money together,” he said, causing a media frenzy, attracting all sorts of negative comments (and the occasional yogurt attacks) from people seeing their salaries and pensions trimmed.

If Pangalos’ statement has an iota of truth, then what could follow this perspective may get more consensus amongst weary Greeks; namely, a phrase like: “we need to recover all together”. What does this mean? It does not mean, of course, returning pensions and salaries at their original levels; even Alexis Tsipras knows that this case is cold. Neither that problems would vanish over night.

It simply means that improvements in psychology should be recorded across the board, horizontally, in the same manner income cuts were introduced by recurring austerity measures. Either this means street safety, elimination of red tape, grassroots entrepreneurship or favorable personal debt settlements for those in need or even a real boost of pubic sentiment through credible information via an efficient and honest governmental communication strategy, citizens really need something solid to continue.

It should be noted here, that one of the biggest omissions and eventually strategic mistakes of Samaras’ government is that, even today, after a year in power, the Greek West Wing continues to lack a modern government website that could set the agenda straight and really explain the crisis to citizens. Unfortunately, this is something Maximos Mansion staffers fail to acknowledge for a series of reasons. One reason is a superiority complex that characterises those who believe they can control people through old style manipulative techniques. Another is the lack of strategic thinking and knowledge as regards the digital economy, and most importantly, its significance for social capital, namely people and their connections, on Facebook and elsewhere.

The quite recent draft bill for the interim Public TV organisation verifies the strategic choices that keep an unexplained distance from the digital realm and quite evidently, from the Greek youth.

To be fair, however, to those guys who took over the task of keeping the Greek boat afloat in the middle of an unprecedented social and economic storm, I should note that thinking – and of course acting – politically in the context of the crisis is an unbearable task; especially when you are an old dog refusing to learn new tricks. At the same time, the fact that political personnel wishes to maintain the perks of clientelism and the patronage system makes the whole effort a quite messy process.

Citizens are not asleep anymore. The great sleep occurred during the last 30 years, in what Greeks call ‘Metapolitefsi’ to indicate the post-Junta period of calmness and peace. Nowadays, old style partisan behaviour is laughed at on social networks and the awareness effect backfires on the face of the communicator.

The creation of a success story that could expand across the country and eventually persuade foreign decision makers is not one that will start from the top, despite the increase of foreign direct investments. The national success story will be the result of a series of smaller ones, which will emerge from all over the country in different fields Greece holds a competitive advantage. These stories could cover any field that requires innovative decision-making and intellectual breakthroughs. These success stories will be the result of citizens taking things in their own hand; in cooperatives or individually.

Greece is characterized by an abundance of resources, what economists call ‘external economies’, which (even excluding the hydrocarbon saga) constitute a vast amount of unexplored GDP on land, in the air and at sea.

What is missing is an honest way to put all things together in a coherent and inspiring saga, away from the misery of partisan priorities and corporatist interests.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of Alyunaniya.com

Republished from HRW.org

This week, reality struck home for Afghanistan over the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Ratified by Afghanistan in 2003 during the early heady post-Taliban days when it seemed like a bright future for women was inevitable, CEDAW is a treaty that requires/demands gender equality in access to education, health care, and political participation. It is the basis for global efforts to end violence against women. The Afghan government is failing in many ways to live up to the commitment it made by signing on to CEDAW.

When you ratify a convention you don’t just get a pat on the back and then a pass on your obligations. CEDAW compliance is overseen by a committee of 23 experts, who spent hours Wednesday grilling the Afghan government delegation who showed up in Geneva to defend the government’s efforts on women’s rights. Committee members pointed out many of the issues Human Rights Watch highlighted in our written statement including that now, 10 years after CEDAW was ratified, numerous Afghan laws explicitly discriminate against women, including in one case a law passed since CEDAW was ratified – the Shia Personal Status Law. They also pointed out that even where the laws on the books are good, there are major failings in their implementation, including a majority of girls not in school, physical assaults including murder against women in public life, lack of accountability for violence against women, and on and on. Not to mention a real risk of backsliding as international support and interest dries up as the end-2014 international troop deadline approaches.

The Afghan government delegation answered some questions but dodged and downplayed many others (including refusing to address question of why the marriage age is lower for girls than boys, and rebutting the suggestion that women have no meaningful access to divorce by saying women can divorce husbands “for bad breath” ). The Afghan chair, Dr. Mohammad Hashimzai, a longtime senior member of the Ministry of Justice, said there is a real commitment across the government to implementing CEDAW. “Afghanistan faces so many challenges,” Dr. Hashimzai said. “But with the continued help of the international community and the help of this [CEDAW] Committee, we will succeed.”

Human Rights Watch will be watching closely to see how deep that government commitment really is – and whether the international community still cares about Afghan women after the military pull-out in 2014.

The acting head of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), Lakshmi Puri, stressed the role women have played in the political life of the country and called for zero tolerance against all forms of violence against women and girls after reports of rape during protests.

“Egypt’s women have been at the heart of the vibrant civil society movement that continues to press for the rights of all Egyptians,” UN Women said in a news release.

“Their participation in public life and the inclusion of their needs and priorities in any political solution is a prerequisite for inclusive democracy in Egypt.”

On Wednesday, 3 July, the Egyptian military deposed President Mohamed Morsy, suspended the Constitution and paved they way for an interim Government. Since then, Mr. Morsy’s foes and supporters have continued to face off in huge demonstrations, with security forces and police adding to the deepening chaos.

More than 80 people have reportedly been killed and thousands more have been injured in the protests. In addition, media reports stated that over 90 women have been raped during the clashes.

“UN Women is concerned by reports of the high prevalence of sexual assaults against women in public spaces,” the agency said. “UN Women adds its voice to calls on all parties to take a firm stand and show zero tolerance for all forms of violence against women and girls. Egypt’s women have the right to fully participate in political dialogue without fear or threat of violence. Their voices are essential to a peaceful and prosperous Egypt.”

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay have spoken out several times on the need for all parties in Egypt – which has been undergoing a democratic transition since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak two years ago – to exercise restraint, protect human rights and resort to dialogue to peacefully resolve differences.

“History has shown that exploiting religious tensions in the context of a political and armed struggle may incite violence and could lead to large-scale atrocities,” said Adama Dieng, expressing concern over recent statements by some religious leaders who have portrayed the Syrian conflict as a religious one.

“Such rhetoric, when it constitutes incitement to violence on religious grounds, could exacerbate the already disastrous violence in Syria, lead to further war crimes and crimes against humanity and fuel tensions between different groups both in Syria and elsewhere in the region.”

More than 93,000 people have been killed and over 1.7 million people have fled Syria to neighbouring countries since fighting began in March 2011 between the Syrian Government and opposition groups seeking to oust President Bashar Al-Assad.

Dieng stressed that all leaders have the responsibility of speaking out against any hate speech that encourages intolerance and discriminatory stereotyping, or that constitutes incitement to violence.

“I urge all leaders in the wider region to act responsibly and refrain from using or condoning any language that may escalate sectarian tensions. The consequences of rhetoric that inflames these tensions will be felt by populations across the region,” he said.

Under international law, attacks against civilians cannot be justified under any circumstances and advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is also prohibited, Mr. Dieng noted.

“All States must refrain from contributing to such crimes, including by tolerating hate speech and incitement to violence against particular populations,” he said. “If we do not act now, there is a serious risk that sectarian violence could spread across the region.”

Mr. Dieng recalled the 2005 World Summit outcome document, in which all Heads of State and Government committed to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including their incitement. The international community also committed to take collective action to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The Office of the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide was set up in 2004 in recognition of the international community’s collective failure to prevent or stop past genocides. It is tasked by the Security Council with collecting and assessing information on situations that might lead to genocide.

43% of respondents believe that SYRIZA would be the winner if elections were imminent, as against 38.4% who believe the same thing for ND. 46.6% say Prime Minister Antonis Samaras is best for the job, while 31.8% say Alexis Tsipras could do it better.

In terms of the popularity of political leaders, Antonis Samaras leads with 42.3%, followed by Fotis Kouvelis (42.1%), Alexis Tsipras (37.3%), Panos Kammenos (29.4 %), Aleka Papariga (26.3%), Evangelos Venizelos (19.5%) and Nikos Michaloliakos (16.6%).

Previous weekend, a survey by company Metrisi for Parapolitika newspaper presents SYRIZA leading in terms of voting intention with a narrow 0.4 percentage points.

A survey of Pulse RC for 6-Days weekly, suggests SYRIZA gathers 20% as against 19.5% of ND. Golden Dawn comes third with 12%, followed by PASOK 7%, Communist Party and Independent Greeks both 5% respectively and DIMAR 3.5%. 5.5% of respondents say they would vote for “another party”, while obscure vote reaches 10%. Neutral vote and abstinence reach 12.5%.

“Ultimately, the women of the Sahel will be instrumental in putting the region on a path to stability,” the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Sahel, Romano Prodi, told the Conference on Women’s Leadership in Sahel in Brussels on 9 April.

“I want to tap into the potential of women to accelerate progress in the Sahel. The discussions that took place today and the recommendations by the participants will help us in seeking sustainable solutions for the Sahel.”

The participating group included some 40 women from Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, as well as representatives from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

They presented their recommendations to Mr. Prodi, as well as the Acting Head of UN Women Lakshmi Puri, and Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission.

Today’s discussions helped shape a common vision on how to empower women to help political stability and economic prosperity in the Sahel ahead of the High-Level Donor’s Conference on Development in Mali to be held on 15 May in Brussels, speakers said.

“It is well established that for peace to be sustainable – a peace that extends beyond the simple act of signing a peace agreement – it needs to be rooted in justice and inclusion,” said Acting Head of UN Women and Assistant Secretary-General Lakshmi Puri.

“There can be no comprehensive strategy to address the sustained and systemic crisis without women’s full participation,” Ms. Puri reiterated, noting that numerous UN resolutions and the international community have stressed this idea.

“We hope this Conference will usher in concrete efforts to increase the participation of women and gender experts in conflict resolution and in the transition to peace, economic recovery, democracy and stability,” she added.

The Sahel region – which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea – suffers from extreme poverty, with human development levels among the lowest in the world, porous borders that present security challenges, as well as significant human rights problems.

The recommendations of the Conference include ensuring that at least 30 per cent of participants in decision-making and politics are women, including through the adoption of pro-active measures.

Participants also agreed on the need for national governments, regional organizations and the international community to support an increased participation of women in conflict-resolution initiatives and to strengthen their entrepreneurial skills and access to services, according to UN Women. The participants also called for sustained and predictable financing for initiatives dedicated to gender equality.

On the same tune, Hellenic Federation of Enterprises chief Dimitris Daskalopoulos last week once again confirmed his critical stance towards the ND-led government; he argued that it was about time Greece to start negotiating “in a smarter, more strategic and more long-term manner, instead of wasting our time on petty bargaining over procedural adjustments.” The next day, Kathimerini editorial comment reprimanded SEV’s chief, noting that the head of Greek entrepreneurs’ union falls dramatically below expectations. “The public of this crisis-hit country expects the business community to seize the initiative and point the way toward a new manner of doing business that is not dependent on state subsidies and handouts, and that will lead to real growth, which is key to Greece’s recovery. What it is getting instead from representatives of the private sector, is a lot of complaining and never-ending political chatter,” the paper noted.

Well, Greece definitely needs both, namely smarter ways for the government to strategise and negotiate with the troika representatives, as well as sharp entrepreneurship that would invest on local advantages by moving forward, away from the obsolete local paradigm.

Under a positive prism, Greece has a unique opportunity to restructure its political and economic norms and draw a line with its futile recent past. It has a chance to start over and make a difference across the EU, adopting contemporary social responsibility concerns and ground breaking multi-facet corporate practices in key fields of the economy and business such as quality tourism, education, health services, transports, energy, to name a few.

Either reconfiguring its local presence or expanding to Libya, Egypt or elsewhere, Greek entrepreneurship has to seize the opportunity of the crisis and come up with a new way of doing business by designing a new economic paradigm.

Labour statistics describe a shift in the corporate field; more recruits than layoffs in the private sector suggest a little less pessimism amongst companies in Greece. A steady increase in economic sentiment also points forward, not back. The unemployment rate, on the other hand –the highest amongst EU members- hinders any attempt to node with certainty towards growth. INEE-GSEE, the top union think tank predicts unemployment to reach a devastating 30%, whilst IOBE’s head recently talked about high Greek unemployment being unsustainable. This means that long term unemployed people are distancing themselves from the market with few possibilities for a return.

In the Greek crisis, structural unemployment is part of change, albeit of dramatic nature. Fifty-year-old blue and white collars, kicked out due to the crisis from jobs that ceased to exist, will probably never find the same job again, unless the sector manages a quick come back. Although this cannot be ruled out, primarily due to the volatility of change itself, the wise thing to do is those people to capitalize on their experience, by forming teams of diverse specialties that could invest on new small-medium entrepreneurship; they could even attract generous funding, depending on their business plan.

Quite recently Qatar and Greece started talking about a joint venture capital that would invest on SMEs. The Qataris know that innovation and added value business ideas will emerge from small teams of people who will combine their efforts towards a common goal. The faster the coalition government decides to allow these efforts to flourish -by drastically cutting red tape, opening up protected professions and digitizing state services- the sooner Greeks will start producing new money.

What analysts still refuse to put in the equation is politicians’ ability to inspire people and trigger change. Cannot blame them for thinking less of political actors who have failed to protect their voters from clientelism and petty interests. However, for the time being, politicians in Greece are the only group of people that have the power to turn things around, protecting what’s left from their credibility. To manage that, they should rule like there is no tomorrow – for them, not the country.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of Alyunaniya.com