Mirtill – görög-francia eredetű; Jelentése: mirtuszfa, áfonya. Idézet „Annyi ereje még váltig marad mindenkinek, hogy végrehajtsa azt, amiről meg van győződve.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
EZEN A NAPON EMLÉKSZÜNK RÁ:
Jászai Mari (Ászár, 1850. február 24. – Bp., 1926. okt. 5.) A magyar színjátszás nagyasszonya. 1891 augusztusának elején három előadást játszott Ungváron. Első este Stuart Mária szerepében, majd az Elektrában, s harmadik este a Phaedra címszerepében lépett fel. A lelkes közönség mind a három este zsúfolásig megtelítette a színkört. 1893. június 28-án a beregszászi Arany Oroszlán szálló dísztermében lépett fel Hilgerman Laura, az operaház művésznője és Polónyi Elemér zongoraművész közreműködésével a Bereg megyei Közművelődési Egyesület javára rendezett „művészi estélyen”. Jászai Mari Kiss József Jehovah című költeményét, a Pázmány lovag és az Ágota kisasszony című költeményeket adta elő „felséges művészi színezéssel, frappáns hatással; frenetikus tapsokra ragadtatva a közönséget.”
Forrás: Keresztyén Balázs: Kárpátaljai Művelődéstörténeti Kislexikon (Hatodik Síp Alapítvány – Mandátum Kiadó, Budapest – Beregszász, 2001.)
MAGYARORSZÁG KULTÚRTÖRTÉNETÉBŐL:
A kolozsvári Bolyai Egyetemet egyesítik a román Babes Egyetemmel, Babes-Bolyai Egyetem néven (1959).
Forrás: Magyarország kultúrtörténete napról napra, Honfoglalás Egyesület 2000.
KERESD A MEGBÉKÉLÉST! (1)
„Ha vétkezik atyádfia, menj el hozzá, intsd meg négyszemközt: ha hallgat rád, megnyerted atyádfiát.” (Máté 18:15)
Miután a vasárnapi iskolai tanító elmagyarázta a gyerekeknek a „tiszteld apádat és anyádat” (2Mózes 20:12) parancsot, megkérdezte hatévesekből álló osztályát: „Tudtok olyan parancsot mondani, ami arról szól, hogyan bánjunk a testvéreinkkel?” Egy kisfiú rögtön válaszolt: „Ne ölj!” (2Mózes 20:13). Komolyra fordítva a szót: miért volt Jézus számára ilyen nagy ügy, hogy kibéküljünk hittestvéreinkkel ahelyett, hogy hagynánk elmérgesedni a vitát? Hiszen annyira fontosnak tartotta, hogy egy háromlépcsős tervet adott a kezelésére. Először: menj el, és négyszemközt beszélj vele. Másodszor: vigyél magaddal két vagy három tanút. Harmadszor: ha az előző lépések nem hoztak megbékélést, vidd az ügyet a gyülekezet elé. Ám ha ezeket az igeverseket az utánuk következőket kihagyva olvasod, akkor pont a lényeget nem fogod érteni, amire Jézus rá akart mutatni: „Bizony, mondom néktek azt is, hogy ha közületek ketten egyetértenek a földön mindabban, amit kérnek, azt mind megadja nekik az én mennyei Atyám. Mert ahol ketten vagy hárman összegyűlnek az én nevemben: ott vagyok közöttük.” (Máté 18:19-20). Ha a megbékélést keressük és egységre törekszünk, két csodálatos dolog történik: a) bátran imádkozhatunk bízva abban, ahogy imánk meghallgatásra talál; b) élvezhetjük Isten békességét és érezhetjük jelenlétét, ami nem lehetséges addig, amíg el nem rendeztük a problémát. Tehát ha ma Isten áldásaiban akarsz járni, keresd a megbékélést!
A fenti elmélkedés a Keresztyén Média UCB Hungary Alapítvány napi elmélkedése (honlap: maiige.hu), melynek írója Bob Gass. Magyar nyelven negyedévre szóló kiadvány formájában megrendelhető az említett honlapon, vagy a következő címen: Mai Ige, 6201 Kiskőrös, Pf. 33.
Szent Polikárp püspök és vértanú
Egészen korai idők vértanúja Polikárp, aki az Isten bölcsességét keresve vezette a rábízottakat. Isten segítségét kérjük a mai napon, hogy erősítse meg hitünket, és áldja a meg a felkészülésünket a közelgő nagyböjtre.
Polikárp szmirnai püspök, Szent János apostol tanítványa, a keleti Egyház kiemelkedő egyénisége. A húsvét megünneplésével kapcsolatos vita eldöntésére személyesen járt Rómában, Anicét pápánál (151 körül). Fennmaradt a filippiekhez írt levele. Életéről egykorú írók, Szent Ireneus püspök és Tertulliánus írtak. Haláláról hiteles vértanú akták tanúskodnak. 86 éves korában, 155 február 23-án a pogányok bevádolták a prokonzulnál mint “Ázsia tanítómesterét”, és halálát követelték. Máglyahalálra ítélték, de mivel a tűz nem ártott neki, karddal átdöfték. Holttestét megégették, de csontjait összegyűjtötték, és “minthogy drágaköveknél többre becsülték, megfelelő helyen (a kisázsiai Musztafa hegyen) eltemették”. Ott gyülekeztek össze a keresztények “vértanú születésnapját” megünnepelni.
bacskaplebania.hu
Since toppling President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, the Egyptian military has successively expanded its civil economic activities. This development has attracted growing criticism, above all in the private sector. The government responded in October 2016 by announcing that the armed forces would diminish their economic role over the coming two to three years. But strong market positions, established privileges and historically ingrained structures make it unlikely that this will actually occur. Instead the economic activities of the armed forces, for example in the food, energy and construction sectors, will continue to shape the Egyptian economy. Realisation of the structural reforms Cairo agreed with the IMF in November 2016 is more than doubtful under these circumstances. Not least on those grounds, international donors should urge Egypt’s leaders to curb the army’s privileges.
By Alireza Jafarzadeh
Barely a week after President Donald Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Iran commenced another round of ballistic missiles to test his tough campaign rhetoric. The most recent launch took place even after the administration officially put the regime “on notice.” In doing so, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to lead the charge in defying international will.
Under United Nations Security Council resolution 2231, which coincided with the Iran nuclear deal, the Iranian regime is called upon to refrain from work on such weapons. Accordingly, Iran is barred from launching ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear material.
The missile launches were preceded by half a dozen others that also took place after the conclusion of nuclear negotiations. The regime faced little to no consequence for those provocative acts, but the latest launch was the first one to be carried out on President Trump’s watch.
As should have been expected from Trump’s statements on the campaign trail, the Iranian regime can expect a far less deferent response from the current administration. Some commentators also speculated that the IRGC carried out the test so early in the new presidency to gauge how the administration would respond to subsequent acts of defiance.
The answer was made abundantly clear when recently-resigned National Security Advisor Michael Flynn issued a statement condemning the missile test as being not only in defiance of UNSC resolution 2231, but also part of a long string of confrontational and destabilizing behaviors, including forced close encounters between US Navy ships and IRGC vessels, as well as the targeting of the U.S. and its allies by IRGC proxy groups elsewhere in the region, chiefly the Yemeni Houthi rebels. This statement was backed by Sean Spicer and Donald Trump, and continues to stand following his resignation late Monday.
The statement was equally straightforward in its criticism of the previous administration, noting that it had “failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms.” Similarly, on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Paul Ryan said Washington should stop “appeasing” Iran. The message is clear that this permissiveness is at an end. This clear statement from Washington was promptly followed by a new round of sanctions issued from the White House.
These responses—both in rhetoric and action—seems to answer significant questions about whether President Trump would stay true to the tough talk that had become a familiar feature of his campaign. But other questions certainly remain, particularly those having to do with exactly what steps the administration will now take to transform tough talk into firm policy.
The natural first step is to impose additional new and relevant sanctions, as well as tightening those that already exist. The push to include additional regime entities on the list of sanctions is a good start.
It has been noted that in opening up Iran to international investment, the Iran deal also opened the door to indirect financing of the IRGC, the organization that is the main driving force behind the missile tests, the provocations in the Persian Gulf, and a wide variety of Iran’s worst behaviors at home and abroad. The worsening of these activities helps to underscore the fact that it is long past time to restrain the influence and activities of the IRGC.
Currently, Western businesses are free to invest in Iranian firms in which the IRGC is only a minority stakeholder, or in which its interests are concealed behind front companies or proxies in the Iranian business world. It is, therefore, essential for the administration to isolate the IRGC completely from Western funds and business dealings by designating it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
What the Trump administration cannot do is repeat the mistakes of its predecessor. These include not only the laxity that was referenced in former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s statement, but also a tendency to look toward certain factions of the Iranian government as a source of hope for internal moderation. The experience of the past several years has proven the folly of this approach. The IRGC has only grown more deeply integrated into the Iranian system, having gotten more financing and no serious challenge from so-called moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In fact, the armed forces budget has increased dramatically.
In addition to sanctions and the terrorist designation of the IRGC, the Trump administration also has an extraordinary opportunity to stop Western appeasement of the extremist regime and start engaging the freedom-loving people of Iran. The regime has already been isolated inside Iran and is only surviving through gross human rights violations and executions. It is time for America to support democratic Iranian opposition movements as the strongest strategic deterrent to the regime’s destabilizing behavior.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is credited with exposing Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, triggering International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. He is the author of “The Iran Threat” (Palgrave MacMillan: 2008). His email is Jafarzadeh@ncrius.org.
The post Trump Administration Puts Iran “on Notice” & Issues Sanctions. What’s Next? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Recent tensions between Russia and Belarus seemed to display the Kremlin’s shattering dreams for integration across the countries of the former Soviet Union. The Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), developed as a rival to the European Union, seemed failing short of its goals, with friendly countries drifting away amidst Russia’s alleged weakness.
Fumes flared up after statements of Alexander Lukashenko Belarus’ strongman leader, who has been in charge of the nation for over 26 years witnessing major historical shifts in the Kremlin’s foreign policy, launched a fierce diatribe during a 7-hour long conference.
He blamed the Kremlin for violating a two decades old bilateral agreement after the FSB established a security zone on the shared border previously free of any regulations. The decision came as a response to Minsk announcing a five-day visa waivers for citizens from 79 countries—including the United States, a gesture deeply disliked by the Kremlin.
Lukashenko also accused Russia of blackmail by cutting oil exports to Belarus by half. He further asked to file a criminal case against the head of Rosselkhoznadzor, a Russian federal service for veterinary surveillance, for inflicting damage on Belarus by restring the export of goods. Over the past years, the country had grown into a major illegal supplier of sanctioned goods to Russia.
Despite unabashedly emotional and critical, Lukashenko made it clear that Minsk will remain within the EEU. His speech, however, raised rumors of the union with Russia entering a bumpy road.
Continuous disputes between the two EEU members might culminate with Minsk drifting away from Moscow’s orbit. Meanwhile, current hurdles seem troubling and unlikely to get resolved any time soon. Rather, they underscore the complex nature of the union that is sweepingly misinterpreted in the West.
As the leadership from countries in the EEU comes from the legacy of the Soviet communist party, treating Moscow as the central authority is not unusual. But, with the acquired sovereignty after the Soviet collapse, the elites of the independent nations have grown increasingly reluctant to share power.
Most of the EEU nations face acute problems with corruption, bloated bureaucracies and authoritarian leadership. Unlike the West, nations do not lecture each other on human rights and democracy promotion, treating the current situation as the norm.
A range of factors from economic dependence to shared cultures and borders make it further impossible for the former Soviet republics to break ties with the Kremlin without shooting themselves in the foot.
The Kremlin foresees this and does not want to repeat the radical backlashes against its influence as in the case of Ukraine. Hence, the only format in which the former Soviet space could coexist and benefit economically is one in which the maintenance of international relations is founded on equality.
Therefore, the Kremlin tries to stay above political incursions into domestic affairs as long as each country maintain its position within the Moscow-led union. In return, freedom of movement across borders and economic benefits remain among key tenets of the EEU along with a certain degree of political autonomy in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, Moscow would be happy to see more support of its actions internationally from the EEU members. In recent years, it has become evident that the economic interests overweight political solidarity—no political support will emerge if it goes against interests of an individual member country.
During the Ukrainian crisis, neither Minsk nor Astana expressed support to Russia’s actions and instead maintained neutrality. At some point, both even criticized its actions in Ukraine, concerned with their own sovereignty and security. Similarly, neither legally recognizes statuses of the so-called People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine or South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia.
Kazakhstan is the only country that has a stable economy across the EEU. Ruled by the 76-year-old president Nursultan Nazarbayev, its political position balances between pro-Russian, pro-Chinese and even pro-American stances when needed. Regardless of whether Putin and Trump eventually get along, Astana is set to benefit from the new administration with Rex Tillerson as secretary of state possibly championing ties and investments into local oil fields.
Kyrgyzstan, another nation of the EEU, has recently launched a more active policy towards China amidst the Kremlin’s inability to fund a promised dam project of Kambarata-1 and the Upper Naryn cascade. The country’s President Atambayev was as harsh as Lukashenko in accusing Moscow over the racist treatment of Kyrgyz migrant workers during the May 9 requiem event for the 71st anniversary of the Soviet victory in World War II.
While criticism might pinpoint to the crippling EEU, it rather displays a decentralized partnership encompassing and tolerating internal contradictions, and even democratic forms of interactions among its members. The later comes as a surprise given prevailing authoritarian forms of governance with little tolerance towards dissent domestically. However, it seems that the Kremlin has no choice how to uphold its grip but to maintain such equality in order to keep its Eurasian dream afloat.
The post Despite Hurdles, Russia’s Eurasian Dream Lives On appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.