Wearing my black gown, square cap and a light blue hood, which is meant to symbolize the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (to make it different from two other graduate schools and a mass of undergraduates), I received my MA degree in anthropology. This rainy day Simon and Uli were my family. And Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for the "New York Times" and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, gave the commencement speech in the gymnasium, filled with hundreds or thousands. He spoke of how he became a journalist and what it means to be a good one. In 1975 he graduated from Brandeis, as I did today. He finished his captivating talk with a quote from Mark Twain, abused many times, but very powerful in his mouth: "Work as if you don't need the money, Dance like nobody’s watching, Love like you’ve never been hurt. Live like it’s heaven on earth." I must have forgotten the order and probably some lines, but the simple truth of these words affected me. I would be ready to go out there and do good deeds for the well-being of humanity. But for me it's not over yet. Next September I will be back here, so that in some years to graduate finally. But can I wait? I already have an idea of organizing a symposium on the freedom of speech next Spring at Brandeis, were Orhan Pamuk and Gary Kasparov would be among the speakers, as would some human rights and social justice activists. But now... California, here I come!

Last Tuesday Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and Vice Chancellor in the government of Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005, who was a youth activist back in the 1960s and then the leading figure in the German Green Party and for many years the most popular politician, Now he is teaching in Princeton. “He went to the East, I went to the West,” commented Fischer on the aftermath of their days in power.



The topic of his two-hour talk was Europe, Germany and the conflict in the Middle East. What was it about in particular? Firstly, he admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a very decision because now there is no way out: retreating might end up in civil war, staying doesn’t make any more sense. It was a trap. I liked his idea that democracy cannot be brought about at gunpoint. And does the U.S. really want democracy in Iraq? The majority rule brings Shias to power, but that will make Iraq closer and closer to Iran. As a matter of fact, for Fischer, Iran with its nuclear ambitions seemed to be the major threat in the region. I wasn’t convinced. But Simon and Negar (good to have a member of the Iranian democratic opposition at Brandeis) proved why a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be disastrous: for Simon, the most important consequence is further nuclear ambitions of other states in the region, especially the Saudis, who will not be able to control this power and the deadly weapon might end up in the hands of some terrorists; for Negar, the reasons for opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions have more to do with its internal policies and the consolidation of the regime in power, which she is fighting against. Negar was the first one to ask Fisher a question about Iran and the use of economic sanctions against Ahmadinejad’s regime. She was concerned that the sanctions will be projected to the population, as has happened in other cases. But Fischer was firm. He proposed active diplomacy (such as Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria), generous offers to Tehran (just like in North Korea) and, if these attempts fail, stopping all money transactions in the oil market with Iran.

More than anything, Fischer seemed to me very pragmatic, not what I really had expected from the Green leader. He went on to stress the importance of Turkey, which has been falling back since Europe turned away from it. Turkey, for him, is a strategic ally and an example that democracy and Islam can go together, therefore, it can’t be let to fail. Even when one senior Armenian asked him about the issue of the Armenian genocide, Fisher replied that the recognition of its past mistakes will come as a consequence of Turkey’s modernization. And it being predominantly Muslim does not mean the doors of the EU are shut for Ankara.

And then there was the question of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fischer wasn’t as brave to talk about this conflict as President Jimmy Carter was. Maybe because of the audience, that is, in front of Brandeis community. Or maybe because he is German and as German he simply cannot say anything against Israel. This is a new axiom in German policies towards the Middle East. He did not denounce the wall and did not talk about the apartheid. At that time I was sitting next to a very old Jewish professor, retired from CUNY, who happened to be a student of Margaret Mead. And this gentleman was much more sober in relation to the issue. He said that he never approved occupation of Palestinian territories and keeps telling his other Jewish friends that Israelis are doing to the Palestinians the same that the British did to Israelis living in Tel Aviv back in 1930s. That’s isolation. I think Fischer lacked firm stance towards this conflict.

And I also don’t approve of his attitude towards Russia. When I asked him about German foreign policy towards Kremlin, he – very pragmatically – argued that getting gas from Russia is the only possibility and Germany needs gas. He simply saw Russia as a better option than the Middle East. And, even though in the end he showed a little concern with the authoritarian tendencies in Russia, he finished by stating that he prefers having Russia as a friend and not an enemy. After my question people have been asking whether I am Russian But, in fact, one thing I liked in his response. He said that maybe the West is somehow guilty for what is happening in Russia because when in the middle of 1990s it opened itself to the world, the world did not really welcome the democratic Russia… and so it went back… it’s own way…

Fischer talked for two hours, then we had the official dinner.

He believes in Europe much more than in the U.S. He was patient with the questions. Some say, he was arrogant. I think, pragmatic. But in some cases really short-sighted.

On May 8 at 11:45 am in Vilnius’ Cathedral Square, a massive demonstration will take place in support of Estonia, in response to recent riots in Tallinn and attacks against Estonian diplomats in Moscow by pro-Kremlin youths. The organizers of the demonstration have called on Lithuanian citizens and their Latvian and Estonian counterparts to join this show of Baltic solidarity under the slogan of “We are together! Free and independent!”



The purpose of the demonstration is to not only support Estonia, but to remind European political leardes that silence during times of crisis has often ended in tragedy for the Baltic States.

Every civic-minded citizen, who is concerned about recent incidents in Estonia, as well as other organizations, politicians and journalists, are invited to join this display of solidarity. Those wishing to participate are encouraged to e-mail lt.lv.est@gmail.com.

Plenty of civic organizations already expressed their support and willingness to participate at the event.

Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as well will join hands simultaneously at 12:05 in Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn and on the borders of these states to express the will and the unity of the Baltic States.

This will be reminiscent of the Baltic Way*, when Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians declared that the Baltic States would stand together during their greatest times of challenge.

As long as gatherings are restricted in Tallinn, people there are encouraged to wave Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian flags out of their windows in houses, offices, cars, showing their moral support to event.

Riots in Tallinn and assaults on Estonian diplomats in Moscow, both verbal and physical, demonstrate that threats to Baltic security have assumed a different face.

The riots in Tallinn were a serious warning and lesson for the three Baltic States. Aggressive statements by Russian government officials and slanted Russian media reports in support of inadmissible acts of violence and vandalism by marauding youths were not only shocking, but totally unacceptable.

For further information, contact Mr. Justinas Pagirys, tel. +370 675 32108 or Ms. Indrė Makaraitytė, tel. + 370 685 12732

Last Friday I had to get up before dawn to be on time for the annual Harvard conference on gender. Not that gender interests me much, but this year the topic was food and that day Sidney Mintz (a famous anthropologist who wrote on sugar produced by slaves in the plantations of the Caribbean was instrumental in creating the working class in industrial Britain) and Amartya Sen (Indian economist who received so many awards that maybe only the Nobel Prize is worth mentioning) were about to talk.



During the break after first panel, which was dedicated to discussing Mintz’s book “Sweetness and Power”, I was sipping black tea with lemon, while leaning against the wall, and observing professors in grey suits chatting about food, when I saw him. Amartya Sen. I have no idea how I recognized him, since I had never seen him before, nor read any of his works in reality. Maybe it is the effect of browsing through Wikipedia the previous night to get the basic information on him. I must have seen his photo somewhere there. Anyway, I was not sure it was him, but I liked him. He was friendly with everybody, greeted everybody and smiled while climbing the stairs to the auditorium. I followed this Indian in light grey suit and glasses. His panel was dedicated to nutrition and famine.

Basically, Sen argues that famine in contemporary world is a consequence of bad economic policy and not caused by food shortage as a result of some natural disaster, such as draught. Bad economic policy means that society is divided by structures of inequality that perpetuate poverty. People simply can’t afford to purchase food after their own security nets have been torn away by state reforms – like forced implementation of World Bank-pushed adjustments to free-market economy in Sierra Leone, described in Peter Griffiths’ “The Economist’s Tale”. Even during the famous Irish Potato famine food was shipped from Ireland to England where people were able to pay more for it, not that Ireland had completely no food.



This idea raises many questions about the meaning of humanitarian aid. If the problem is not lack of food, would tones of rice bags marked with symbols of the Red Cross or United Nations or World Food Program change anything? Yes, maybe they will feed the starving for a week, a month, even a year. But it is not sustainable. It will not eliminate the reasons they are starving, only create a part of society continuously dependent on foreign donations. And when the pictures of kids with swollen bellies, who are too weak to chase away the flies, will stop appearing in the media, donor organizations will simply move away to another “crisis zone”. Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Niger, Somalia, Chad… Many tables and graphs with statistics only prove that most people that die of famine don’t die in famine that we hear about in the media. Most die in everyday famine, in famine-related poverty, silent and unobserved. Sen even told a story about a woman who, during a famine, says to a girl: “Be careful! Famine will be over!”.

Then somebody stood up and asked whether the solution could be increased investments in research and an invention of some climate-and-insects-resistant crop, which could feed the world. Sen just smiled as that somebody completely missed the point. He then answered: “I am not against food as such, but…” And he repeated that the food is not the problem, so it can’t be the solution. Any study of hunger and any attempt to help should see the peculiarities – who starve and why. Famine is not democratic, it does not effect the whole country the same way, maybe certain groups even benefit from it… Therefore, no generalizations can be made, as only locally-oriented interventions might work.

But not only local is important. The main moral is that, if the problem is identified correctly, it is easier to find a solution. P. Griffiths says that “Free Market (with capitals) is a political dogma, not an economic one”. Similarly, David Harvey (another anthropologist from CUNY) claims that, although neo-liberalism is not a result of “the imposition of some model orthodoxy by some hegemonic power, such as US”, it is still political as serving class interests and again political because not really economic – all alone it failed to produce economic growth both in the US and in Britain. Naturally, then, if the roots of the problem are political, so should the solutions be: aid workers and researchers that dwell in small villages in the middle of the jungle trying to “develop” the underdeveloped, villages that are too far from the centers where power actually resides, are dealing with the symptoms, not the causes, which are to be found in the president’s palace or the ministry headquarters.

I left. A little sad, but with some hope. And then I bought a cheap chicken burger at “Wendy’s”, which made me think I still belong to the part of the society that is rather privileged. However, irony suddenly reshaped my face as I remembered the anecdote Minu once cited. One guy asks his friend as he looks at a parking lot full of the most swanky and expensive cars: “What’s going on in that building?” His friend looks at him and says: “It’s a conference on poverty”.