THE POPE CAN BE ANYONE
The Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
March 20 2013
Yuri Kramar. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Yesterday, the enthroning of the new Pope Francis took place in
the Vatican. Many indirect factors prove that his election wasn’t
a coincidence. First, Benedict VI resigned, the first time in 600
year a sitting pope had done sos; then he was replaced by Cardinal
Jorge Bergoglio in the second day of the conclave’s working. Almost
all international mass media are paying numerous compliments to the
new Pope.
It makes us think about a very smart and well-prepared direction
of the Pope’s electing and the powerful information campaign which
followed the elections.
The new head of the Vatican is expected to overcome the crisis in
the Catholic Church and using it in favor of those who contributed
to Francisco’s enthronement. At the same time, these goals contradict
each other, and certain decisions will depend on the Pope himself.
What will he feel like: an Argentinean, a Latin American, or a
Catholic?
The policy of the RCC will depend on this, including the policy
of the Caucasus and the Middle East. For example, recently the
pro-Armenian mass media have reported as if Cardinal Bergoglio
called “the Armenian genocide a hard crime against humanity and
the Armenian nation, committed by the Ottoman Empire” in 2006 in
Buenos Aires. However, they came up with only one reference to a
little-known American periodical. It raises doubts on truthfulness
of the information. The Argentinean Senate adopted the resolution
in 1998, which judges any genocide as “a crime against humanity”,
as examples there were genocides of Armenians, Jews, Kurds…
Such a behavior of the Argentinean elite is not surprising. Firstly,
the Jews Diaspora of Buenos Aires surpasses even the New York
Diaspora. The foreign minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman paid a
special attention to the Argentinean authorities a couple of years ago
during his visit to the South America. And what can be more pleasing
for Tel-Aviv than a small filth to Turkey, its strategic rival –
at least the propaganda of “the Armenian genocide”?
Secondly, Argentina is the most “pro-Western” country among other
states of the Latin America. Its role is similar to the role of Poland
in East Europe. Buenos Aires is watching its Latin American neighbors
and fulfilling all globalist requirements of the IMF, the World Bank,
and other liberal structures. As for the policy of “liberty promotion”
along with protection of homosexuality an important moment is touching
on the myth on “the Armenian genocide.”
By the way, both of these items concern the motherland of the
current Pope. Along with the resolution on “the Armenian genocide”
the Argentinean authorities have recently recognized ability of
homosexual unions – it caused a heavy rebuff of the head of local
Catholics, Cardinal Bergoglio. His relations with President Cristina
Kirchner appeared to be at “the freezing point.”
Almost all international mass media noticed that congratulations
from Lady-President were very moderate. And even the recent visit
to the new Pope was marked by Kirchner’s request to “contribute to
returning of the Malvinas Islands to Argentina”, the residents of
which voted by common consent for maintaining the archipelago under
the British jurisdiction.
However, Popes have never interfered into disputes of secular
leaders of the world and have always followed the principle “let
the strongest win.” The UK is the strongest in the dispute over the
Falkland Islands. And Kirchner’s impossible request resembles a direct
desire to get the Pope into a mess in eyes of his compatriots.
At the same time, these factors do not contradict attractiveness
of “the Argentinean variant” for modern Western liberalism,
including the USA. Other variants were much more uncomfortable
for Washington. While Americans had been fighting against the world
Communism and the USSR, they failed to see a boom of socialism in the
Latin America. In the 20th century only Cuba experienced its victory,
but today it is easier to name the countries where socialists are not
in power. Venezuela, Brasilia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Nicaragua
are being administrated by the left-wing regimes. First of all, they
are oriented at nationalization of natural resources producing from
hands of transnational monopolies which used to leave only a tiny
part of revenues to the population.
The policy of these countries differs from the Argentinean or
Columbian. In some extent they all are anti-American, and their
foreign political steps prove this. For example, after the conflict
over South Ossetia Venezuela and Nicaragua were one of first countries
which recognized its independence.
To be continued .
From: A. Papazian