Europe's Role in the World

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs

Remarks at the Europa Forum Program, Berlin, Germany, May 9, 2007

Assistant Secretary Fried delivers remarks at the Europa Forum Program. Thank you Hans [Buerger, Deputy Chief Editor of ORF-TV, Austrian TV]; it is a pleasure to be in Berlin. And this is my fifth trip this year, which says a lot about the depth of European and American ties, one of the subjects I will be speaking about today.

I have been asked to speak on "Europe's Role in the World" and you have sought an outside perspective, albeit that of a close Ally.

Now how close is that? Let me assure you that there is no closer partnership in the world than that between the United States and Europe. The U.S. and Europe do not constitute a single polity. But we do form a single community of values, interests, and responsibilities. Our roles in the world are not the same, but they are inextricably close, by choice but also by our very natures.

We may play different positions, but we do play the same sport, and we are on the same team.

Our identities are bound up by our commitments to human rights, rule of law, freedoms of religion and the press, and to market economics. The United States and Europe are centers of power and wealth and, as such, have special responsibility to help our fellow human beings and, yes, help shape the world.

This is not simply altruism. An open, prospering world, increasingly characterized by the rule of law and deepening democracy, is better for us all, and far better than a closed world of hostile ideologies and spheres of influence. We have learned this the hard way.

We have also learned, we the U.S. and the Europeans, the hard way that events in far off corners of the world, in failed states, will affect us.

There is little that we can do by ourselves. There is much we can do together. Where we cooperate and collaborate, we generally succeed. This is the case from Kosovo to Afghanistan. And I sleep better at night when I know America embarks on a mission with Europeans at our side.

This optimistic picture of transatlantic relations flies in the face of conventional wisdom about transatlantic rifts. But there is more popular support for the transatlantic alliance than the punditry in Europe and America often realize or are willing to admit. Poll after poll reveals a popular mandate for Europe and America to work together on the major issues confronting our societies.

Let me cite a German poll , that of the Bertelsmann Foundation, that has just come out, which shows that vast majorities on both sides of the Atlantic want transatlantic cooperation on issues as far ranging as democracy promotion, proliferation prevention, climate change, and energy security.

A large majority in Germany -- 73 percent -- want to see both us working together to prevent countries such as Iran from developing nuclear weapons. That figure rises to 74 percent in Spain-and to 79 percent in Finland. American support for that is 81 percent.

When it comes to the supposedly controversial subject of promoting democracy worldwide, 84 percent of Germans want to work together with America to this end. That's ahead of the 72 percent support in the U.S but behind that of Spain at 85 percent.

Germans, Spanish and Americans have statistically identical views on the need for transatlantic cooperation to promote energy security -- 80, 83, and 81 percent respectively.

And huge numbers, 78 percent of Americans and 73 percent of Europeans, support cooperation on climate protection.

Across eight European countries, only an average of 4 percent said they did not want, and did not support, closer cooperation between the United States and Europe.

Bertelsmann's own conclusion was that "there is a clear mandate among the citizens of Europe and the USA for close transatlantic cooperation. Both parties see the other side as a vitally important partner."

I take pleasure in this endorsement for the core of my own country's foreign policy toward Europe today, which calls for cooperation in resolving common problems we face throughout the world.

This mandate was endorsed last week by our leaders, at the EU-U.S. Summit.

Our leaders agreed to:

* Support determination of final status of Kosovo -- supervised independence -- where we both have troops under NATO.

* Coordinate security and civilian support for Afghanistan, were we also have troops under NATO.

* Consider additional sanctions in Sudan, to put pressure on that government so that it ends the genocide in Darfur.

* Promote the rights of the Cuban people, who deserve democracy no less then we.

* Advance cooperation on energy security and climate change.

We signed:

* A Framework for Transatlantic Economic Integration;

* A U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement; and

* An agreement on exchange of classified information between the U.S. and the European Union.

The Framework is ambitious and substantive, and it is the original initiative of Chancellor Merkel. It will greatly reduce regulatory obstacles to building a genuine transatlantic economy, already the most robust in the world.

The Air Transport Agreement will allow every U.S. and EU carrier to fly between every city throughout the European Union and the U.S.

Our declaration on energy security and climate change paves the way for concrete practical cooperation that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an environmental crisis of our time.

We have made progress because we have made efforts. From the start of his Second Term, President Bush has reached out to Europe. Europe has reached back, and our relations are again on a strong footing.

In the time remaining to the current American Administration, we will work with Europe together on many challenges: Iran, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, and more.

I want to discuss today two longer term challenges.

* One is conceptual and organizational: we need an integrative approach to global crises, one that brings together military capabilities and reconstruction and development.

* The second is strategic: we need to find a framework for working with, and dealing with Russia, a great nation that deserves respect and with which we seek cooperation, but about whom we have concerns and with whom we have some differences.

On the first challenge, I am not talking about a division of labor between soft and hard power. Like talk of Mars and Venus, this tends to draw divisive lines. In fact, we all need to exercise both powers.

The world remains a dangerous place. We have to sharpen all tools at our disposal and learn to work in an integrative, comprehensive fashion.

The use of force is no virtue, but it may be our necessity. Force by itself will not bring success. But those who pretend we can dispense with force altogether are deluding themselves.

Let us recall a field where our forces and our civilian agencies are equally involved: Afghanistan. We need military means to confront and, yes, take out the Taliban. Success does not come from battles, however, but from schools and roads and good governance and jobs. We need teachers. But we need security forces to protect the teachers from the Taliban who could descend into town under cover of darkness and kill them.

Challenges Europe and the United States face in the early 21st century may well include those in which insecurity and dysfunctionality are linked, and we need integrated tools of security and development to meet them.

We have to think of this conceptual framework -- and apply the real world lessons we are learning in Afghanistan -- as we sort through the institutional questions of NATO, the European Union, the UN, World Bank and the other organizations we turn to and work with and are part of.

We must overcome habits of mind and policy and bad habit. To be blunt, we need to overcome the stigma that many in Europe attach to the use of force, and we need to see it as sometimes integral to our efforts to support human development. And to be equally blunt, America must recommit to what some in my country still refer to derisively as "nation building."

And we must do away with rivalries that have kept our best instruments from working together. The inability of the European Union and NATO to work together is no longer just a nuisance: it costs lives and threatens our success where we cannot afford failure.

I hope that at the end of the current American Administration, we can resolve to put aside institutional theology in favor of integrated effort.

Can we agree, for example, on the following?

* Total, unrestricted cooperation on the ground between EU and NATO operations and activities. Our principles should be transparency, coordination, and integrated action, not institutional separation.

* Greater strategic coordination among NATO and European Union leaders -- after all, 21 countries are in both organizations. Our Foreign Ministers have a strategic discussion over dinner every three to four months. Why not Foreign Aid Ministers, Defense Ministers, or even Prime Ministers? And can we support Javier Solana and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer leading this effort, instead of imposing limits upon them?

* And finally, we need regular, practical coordination between NATO and EU staffs in Brussels -- and not, please, under cover of darkness, but as an authorized activity backed by both organizations.

Now let me turn to Russia, even more on our minds this week than usual. Russia and the West have dealt with one another -- sometimes well, more often uneasily -- since at least Peter the Great. It would be hubris to proclaim some policy to resolve overnight the relationship between Russia and the West.

We've had some spectacular differences with Russia recently: CFE, Estonia, Missile Defense; and persistent differences, increasingly over democracy. And more differences may arise, possibly over Kosovo, for example.

But let us be steady. It is long-term partnership with Russia that we seek, and not simply management of difficulties. Let me suggest some principles for relations with Russia through what will be a complicated period as Russia moves toward an expected transfer of power this year and early next.

One is tactical: the United States and the European Union should cooperate with Russia when at all possible; push back only when necessary; and at all times be realistic about Russia.

In this regard, encouraged by the wise advice of Chancellor Merkel, the United States is intensifying strategic dialogue with Russia, including on CFE, missile defense, and post-START arrangements. Secretaries Rice and Gates have agreed to a "two-plus-two" format with their counterparts, suggested by the way by the Russians, to consider these issues. We seek common approaches on missile defense, not rhetorical sparring.

A second principle is values based: we should be clear about what sort of Russia we want to see emerge from its unfinished transformation. We do not want a weak Russia. This does nothing for America or, I dare say, nothing for Europe. But a strong Russia must be strong in 21st century, not 19th century terms.

In this century, a strong state must include a strong civil society, an independent media, a strong independent judiciary, and a market economy regulated by independent state institutions. On this basis, a nation may build the rule of law, which makes a good life possible. A strong center is part of this healthy mix, but a strong center in a state of weak institutions, is not.

We should be realistic about Russia. This starts with the understanding that Russia even today is freer than under the Communists, and arguably freer than at any time under the Tsars.

But Russia is a great country and it can do better than that low standard.

We have a stake here, we Europeans and Americans. History suggests a link between a nation's internal arrangements and values on one hand, and its external behavior on the other. Democracies have their flaws, but are apt to be better neighbors and better actors generally.

A third principle is that we should approach Moscow as friend and potential ally everywhere in the world, but we should not pay a price for cooperation, nor indulge Russia when it behaves as if a residual sphere of influence over its neighbors is its due.

Europe and the United States should continue to speak out honestly and if necessary frankly about the use of political and economic pressure against smaller, vulnerable neighbors, such as Estonia and Georgia.

Countries like Estonia and Georgia have their own responsibilities to build better relations with Russia, to be sure. Estonia should continue to reach out to its Russian community, not because it is pressured to do so, but because Estonia is a democracy and respects the rule of law, and such outreach is the right thing to do. President Ilves has made clear his commitment to such a positive approach.

Georgia should avoid the temptation of adventurism, and continue to work toward peaceful, responsible resolution of the separatist conflicts on Georgian territory. President Saakashvili has recognized his responsibility in this regard. We should all support Georgia as it deepens its reforms at home and, on that basis, seeks to draw closer to the transatlantic family and our institutions.

Russia has its own responsibilities, including the recognition that the countries that emerged from the Soviet empire, such as Estonia and Georgia, are truly free and sovereign.

And we -- Germany, Europe as a whole, and America -- have responsibilities of our own to recognize that there is no grey zone in Europe, no implicit sphere of influence for Russia, no outside veto over the fate of these newly free countries. They must be free and responsible to write their own history, for good or ill, whether with us, based on their own readiness to share our values and join our family, or otherwise.

Today is May 9, when Russia celebrates Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. That victory was heroic, purchased at terrible price. The United States recognizes Russia's strong feelings about it. My country will always remember its wartime alliance with Moscow and we honor the courage and sacrifice of Soviet soldiers in defeating Nazi Germany. But Russia must find ways as well to recognize that while Russians' feelings are strong and have validity, so do the feelings of some others, especially those whose liberation from the Nazis did not mean freedom.

Relations with Russia are likely to remain a complex mix of partnership, some friction, some perceived competition, but hopefully growing partnership for some time to come. We cannot resolve all our differences in the next 20 months. But we can, perhaps, put relations with Russia on a productive, frank, and, given my country's electoral calendar, bipartisan footing.

There is much the United States and Europe can and must do in the world. In all our endeavors, neither the United States nor Europe can go it alone. Unilateralism, isolationism, appeasement -- none of these approaches ever works to the long-term good. The sterile indulgence of Euro-bashing or, its twin, anti-Americanism, should join other "-isms" in the dustbin of history.

America in the world needs Europe and, may I suggest, Europe needs America. Our task is not to put our relationship on the Freudian couch and anxiously take its temperature every few weeks, but to put it to work in the world to resolve the problems only we can resolve together: peace and security; the advance of prosperity; the common challenge of climate change and energy security; the fight against disease and poverty, and misery.

So let us do so. Thank you.

---

ENGLAND

---

TYSKLAND

---

FRANKRIG

---

DANMARK (NORGE, SVERIGE)


Udviklingsministeren har udtalt sig vedr. Wolfowitz-sagen:

VERDENSBANKENS PRÆSIDENT, PAUL WOLFOWITZ, TRÆDER TILBAGE DEN 30. JUNI 2007 Bestyrelsen i Verdensbanken har den seneste måneds tid kulegravet Wolfowitz' involvering i forfremmelsen af hans kæreste Shaha Riza og både Bankens bestyrelse, personale og medlemslande har udtrykt dyb bekymring over situationen. Udviklingsministeren udtaler:

"Paul Wolfowitz har mistet den troværdighed og tillid, der er nødvendig for at kunne stå i spidsen for en institution, der rådgiver lande om god regeringsførelse og bekæmpelse af korruption. Heller ikke personale og bestyrelse har længere den nødvendige tillid til Wolfowitz.

Der skal ikke kunne drages tvivl om Verdensbanken troværdighed. Det betyder, at Bankens præsident skal holde sin sti helt ren. Det betyder også, at Bankens procedurer bør gennemgås for at sikre, at lignende sager ikke kan opstå i fremtiden.

Jeg har været meget tilfreds med processen i Bankens bestyrelse. Vi har fra politisk side bedt bestyrelsen om at kulegrave sagen. Det er den blevet. I den givne situation har vi fået den bedst mulige løsning, og nu skal vi se fremad, så Banken kan komme videre med udviklingsarbejdet.

Det er vigtigt, at der relativt hurtigt udpeges en ny præsident, der nyder bred opbakning og accept fra medlemslande og de ansatte".

Redigeret 18. maj 2007

Se under: USA.




Ismail Kadaré. Foto: Bjørn Andersen, 2003


Miqësia / Dansk-Albansk Forening holdt 30.4.2007 et arrangement om Ismail Kadaré. Anledningen var at der - i løbet af det sidste års tid - er udsendt to romaner af ham på dansk (på forlaget Tiderne Skifter), dels »Efterfølgeren«, dels »Agamemnons Datter«. Begge bøger tager udgangspunkt i forholdet mellem Enver Hoxha og daværende PM Mehmet Shehu for omkring 25 år siden. De to oplæg (af oversætteren Gerd Have og af mig) kan læses på: http://miqesia.dk/Kadare-2007.htm


Rapport fra Dansk KFOR. Hærens Operative Kommando - se under: Kosova.

---

LANDE UDEN FOR BALKAN OG ØSTLIGE MIDDELHAV. IKKE NATO-LANDE


RUSLAND

UMs Rejsevejledning: http://www.um.dk/da/menu/Borgerservice/FoerRejsen/Rejsevejledninger/RejsevejledningRusland.htm





Den Russiske UM Lavrov har haft møde med den Amerikanske UM, Dr Condoleezza Rice. Det Russiske UM har udsendt transcript af en pressekonference med Lavrov:

Transcript of Remarks and Replies to Media Questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at Joint Press Conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Moscow, May 15, 2007

760-15-05-2007

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Today ends the action-packed visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Russia. Many meetings with members of the Russian leadership took place, including today’s meeting with Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia. As the chief outcome of the visit I want to stress the confirmation by the United States of America and Russia of our commitment to partnership.

We discussed the work program that the Presidents outlined during their last meeting. We have a concrete list of tasks approved by them, which have a great significance not only for the two states, but also for the international community as a whole, because they concern many things having a direct relationship to security and the development of all countries of the world. They are the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime, and the promotion of more effective, safer methods of developing peaceful nuclear energy.

Based on the accord reached by Presidents Putin and George Bush last year in St. Petersburg, work is under way to combine the initiatives of the two leaders that must eventually help develop nuclear energy for the benefit of all the states honestly and conscientiously fulfilling their obligations under the NPT Treaty and simultaneously lower the risks of nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands.

Another initiative of the two Presidents, concerning forming a global coalition to combat nuclear terrorism, is also being actively realized. More than 30 states have already joined it, and the number of those wishing to take part in it is growing. We agreed to actively continue forming this important coalition, which, undoubtedly, will enable all states to feel more secure.

We continue dialoguing on strategic stability issues. Our representatives are closely working on what to replace the START Treaty, which expires in 2009, with.

We are also grateful to the US for the support of Russia’s line on integration into world economic structures. As you know, bilateral negotiations on Russia’s accession to the WTO are already over. US President Bush has confirmed his support for the soonest completion of the multilateral negotiations. We hope that they will soon be held successfully. We are also grateful to the US for the support of the start of negotiations on Russia’s accession to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We expect that the decision will already be made in Paris tomorrow.

Besides, Russia is keen to join the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. In this regard we also count on interaction with our American partners.

Having today discussed all these matters, we also examined international problems: the Middle East, where we are partners in the Quartet, and Kosovo, where our positions do not yet coincide. But of course this work needs to be continued, in order to arrive at a solution which suits everybody. Above all, as we in Russia believe, at a solution which will be acceptable both to the leaders in Pristina and to the leaders in Belgrade.

We have quite a few other themes of an international character. Practically any regional or international situation is an object of our cooperation and engagement and of our exchange of views.

In conclusion I will say that today at the meeting with the President of the Russian Federation an agenda for the present year was agreed, along with a schedule of contacts at the highest level. I shall particularly note that Condoleezza Rice stressed, and this was actively backed up by President Putin, the necessity not to allow Russian-American relations and the Russian-American partnership to become hostage to the pre-election cycles which are beginning in both countries. This is our common understanding, our common task. That’s the way we’re going to conduct our affairs in the coming period.

Question: Can you explain what underlies the relatively harsh rhetoric that Russia and the US exchanged these past few months?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I do not think that the position of Moscow towards the US in the last few months can be described as hostile rhetoric. I think that it will be more correct to regard the statements that apparently prompted your question as an invitation to a more frank dialogue on all themes. First and foremost, on the issues on which our positions diverge. Such issues will always be there, and the Secretary of State said about this; there are no two big countries between which a complete, absolute harmony exists.

Moscow invites the US to have our cooperation extend not only to the spheres where we have already reached agreement, where our interests coincide, but also embrace the fields where our interests diverge. This is the kind of dialogue that Russia invites. It seems to me that at the level of our Presidents that understanding is there. Understanding that instances will always exist where the positions will be incompatible. But it is extremely important to honestly state our views to each other, strive to understand each other, and in the situations where even this will not help make the positions compatible, promote one’s own line in such a way as not to harm the partner’s interests. That’s what it is all about. One may, of course, bury complex problems deep under the carpet and not talk about them, but surely that will not be a partnership anymore, but something else. We want to be true partners with the US, and I hope that’s reciprocal.

I would also like to add with regard to missile defense. I fully support what the Secretary of State said about the need to think about the threats ahead together. That’s what we suggest and believe that a joint analysis of the threats is the starting point which will enable us to reach a common denominator and common agreement. I expect the planned contacts to be dedicated just to this.

Question: The summit in Samara is approaching. How do you assess the fact that relations between Russia and the European Union, which are, of course, very important both for Europe as a whole and for the international community, are becoming hostage to the position of one of the European countries?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Although I risk running up against critical analysis by journalists, I want to recall an episode when President Yeltsin met with President Clinton in the US. Journalists asked the Presidents why relations between Russia and the US were approaching a catastrophic boundary. The late President Yeltsin replied: There is no catastrophe in the relations; it is you, journalists, who are a catastrophe. President Clinton burst into such loud laughter that it was difficult to suspect him of an unnatural reaction. Later the press criticized Yeltsin for his such harsh treatment of it.

I do not want to apply the same term to what is presently occurring in the media coverage of relations between Russia and the West. I want to say that the crisis about which the journalists are talking largely bears an artificially created character. We are not going to interfere in the European Union’s internal procedures. The European Union itself decided on the principles for its functioning and on its enlargement. I am convinced that the European Union will itself cope with the problems that it has.

Of course, we are interested in seeing Europe, as Henry Kissinger once put it, have “one telephone number” and “speak with one voice.” The sooner our European colleagues manage to arrange true coordination, the more effective I think will be cooperation with the European Union by the Russian Federation as well as by the United States, because the United States has its own advanced dialogue with the European Union – there was a summit in Washington only recently.

Question: The United States and Russia have not reached agreement as to the US proposal on missile defense. What threat is contained in this for bilateral relations? What can be done to prevent this from adversely affecting relations between the countries?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I think that we can divide this question into two parts. There is the military-strategic part. In questions of military-strategic stability there are its own immutable laws – actions, counteractions, defensive, offensive systems. These laws operate regardless of how somebody would like to see this or that situation. The military has its own duty – to figure out threats and take countermeasures. This scheme operated, is operating and will continue to operate. It also operated in the previous times when strategic stability was being disturbed, when NATO was enlarging, when the CFE Treaty did not succeed in entering into force in its adapted form, and when the US was withdrawing from the bilateral ABM Treaty. The other side took the reciprocal steps that enabled it in the understanding it had to restore, maintain and preserve strategic stability. This is the military-strategic aspect of the problem. I repeat it, there are its own laws here, which continue to operate.

The other side, about which the Secretary of State said, is politics and strategic relations, if you like. Their own laws also operate here. They are based on reality. The realities that exist in the world are inevitably taken into consideration by responsible politicians. The reality is such that Russia and the US inevitably have to be, and will remain, partners if both countries become aware of their responsibility for the destinies of the world, for the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and for the struggle against international terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime. If we become aware of our responsibility for the sustainable development of the world economy and the economies of individual regions. I am convinced, I sense it that such responsibility is present on both sides.

The differences in our approaches towards some or other aspects of the developments in the world situation will persist; in some or other questions this will inevitably show itself: we are two countries too big to regard everything completely identically. But we are also too big to try to build our strategic line in relations with each other on the basis of individual, even if very important, but nevertheless individual problems. President Putin and President Bush see the perspective strategically. Today at the meeting of the Secretary of State with the President of Russia the talk was also about this. We are convinced that both our administrations must reinforce the foundation created, so that after the elections both in Russia and in the US those who will come into the Kremlin and the White House continue work on a solid foundation. Both sides have that understanding.

Question: You spoke of minimizing the areas of disagreement. Did you manage to find a common position, that is reduce the differences over the status of Kosovo? What will happen if Russia resorts to its veto power as a member of the UN Security Council on a draft resolution on Kosovo?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Of course, we have as one of the tasks in our relations what you said about, notably – to minimize the degree of our differences. I think that today, perhaps, as regards Kosovo this did not occur. But that our understanding of the positions of each other has widened and deepened – I think that’s correct and one can say so.

Again, a clearer understanding of the positions of each other does not mean that we agree. But at least we see the arguments and the consequences which either party presumes for itself in the event of a particular outcome. Our stand on Kosovo, which Russian President Putin has clearly confirmed today, rests on international law, on the Charter of the United Nations, on the Helsinki Final Act of the OSCE and on the Rome Declaration of 2002, when the Russia-NATO Council was created five years ago. This Declaration reiterates the commitment of all the NATO participants and Russia to conscientiously observe our obligations under international law, under the UN Charter and under the Helsinki Final Act. Our stand also rests on UNSC resolution 1244. The US is convinced that there is no way other than approval of the Ahtisaari plan. Russia is convinced that there is no way other than the continuation of negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade. Today we frankly and honestly stated our arguments to each other. They were heard and, of course, will help build our relations more trustfully, in particular on this problem. Although so far they did not help bring our positions closer, this was a very useful conversation, a useful discussion anyway.

---

KINA

---

Information om »Sidste Nyt« »Sidste Nyt om Albanien, Kosóva og Makedonien« hører til et web-site om de Balkan-lande hvor der lever mange Albanere: http://bjoerna.dk/albanerne.htm. Her kan du også finde »gamle nyheder«, anmeldelser, links og en Balkan Brevkasse. »Sidste Nyt« sættes på nettet én gang om måneden, hvor der sendes besked til dem der ønsker det. Bestilling / afbestilling sker ved at sende en e-mail med teksten »Nyheder udbedes« / »Nyheder afmeldes«. The framework of The Latest News from Albania, Kosóva and Macedonia is in Danish - nevertheless, the news are mostly in English. You may send information, comments and questions to: »The Latest News« [please click]. Nyheder, materiale, kommentarer og spørgsmål modtages meget gerne, både om småting og større ting. Send en e-mail. Tilsvarende hvis du opdager en fejl. Fejl vil blive rettet hurtigst muligt. »Sidste Nyt« og http://bjoerna.dk/albanerne.htm drives non-profit og uden finansiering »udefra«. Hvis du vil være med til at fiansiere udgivelsen kan du lettest gøre det ved at købe én eller flere af mine bøger. Send gerne en mail hvis der er - små eller store - tekniske problemer. Bemærkninger om EDB-sikkerhed. Du må citere hvis du angiver hovedsidens adresse: bjoerna.dk Siderne om Albanerne finder du på: bjoerna.dk/albanerne.htm

»To skridt frem? Albanien i en brydningstid« Baggrundsmateriale kan findes via: http://bjoerna.net/to-skridt-frem/#Linksamling »Albansk Almanak 2004« Almanak'en for 2004 er udkommet i december 2005. Her finder du nyhedsbrevene fra 2004 og nogle kommentarer. Bogen udgives i et sæt bestående af et hæfte (de første 77 sider) og en CD (alle 1264 sider). På CD'en også supplerende materiale - ikke mindst »1912 - Med den serbiske Armé i Makedonien« - Fritz Magnussen's beretninger v/ Palle Rossen. Se indholdsoversigt på: http://bjoerna.dk/albansk-historie/almanak-2004.htm. Se pris på: Bestillingsliste. »Albansk Almanak 2005« Almanak'en for 2005 er udkommet i april 2006. Her finder du nyhedsbrevene fra 2005 og forskelligt supplerende materiale. Bogen udgives i et sæt bestående af et hæfte (ugeoversigterne) og en CD (med ugebrevene og det supplerende materiale - i alt omkring 2.150 sider). Se pris på: Bestillingsliste.

»Albanske Studier« bd. 1-2 Kommentarer til Bjøl, Huntington, Machiavelli, Sørlander, DUPI (Humanitær Intervention), Clausewitz, Mao Zedong, Lars R. Møller, Malcolm og flere andre. Englændere på rejse i Albanien: Edward Lear, Edith Durham og Robert Carver. Bøger om slægtsfejder og blodhævn. Diskussion af Anne Knudsen's disputats om blodhævn på Korsika og af Ismail Kadare's roman »Ufuldendt april«. Baggrundsmateriale om den Sønderjyske general Christian von Holstein, der deltog i Habsburgernes felttog ind i Kosóva i 1689-90. Sidst i bogen et forsøg på en sammenfatning i form af nogle 'grundlæggende synspunkter'. Desuden en kommentar til Hans Hækkerup's »På skansen«. På CD'en supplerende materiale om traditionelle Albanske klædedragter og om Holstein. Hans bog om Kosovo er omtalt i »Albansk Almanak 2004«. Du kan downloade indholdsfortegnelsen og kommentaren til »På skansen« fra: http://bjoerna.dk/albansk-historie/studier-2002.htm Bogen findes i trykt form og på CD (som pdf-fil). Papirudgave 368 A4-sider i 2 bind. Bogen sælges som papirudgave m/ CD og som CD alene. Se pris på: Bestillingsliste. Til dig der kigger på et ældre nummer af »Sidste Nyt«. Seneste udgave af denne »annonce« kan ses på: »Sidste Nyt« (klik)