As the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina cast their votes on September 13-14 in the first post-war municipal elections, many international observers hailed this as a giant step towards democracy and lasting peace in the region. A voter turnout of more than 70% reinforced this view. Moreover, the presence of the NATO-led international stabilization force (SFOR) and more than $50 million from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which organized the elections over the past several months, did their part to ensure a smooth electoral procedure. But did the weekend elections truly embody the breakthrough that the Bosnian people have awaited for so long in their struggle to overcome the consequences of Serbian aggression? If one believes the worldwide media, the elected local councils should help reverse the pattern of killing and help restore multi-ethnic pre-war communities as set forth in the 1995 Dayton peace accords, which formally ended the war.
On the ground, however, the poll can only be viewed as a farce disguised as a democratic ritual. Thus, the elections might create “governments in exile”, with municipal councilors unable to enter towns which are controlled by another ethnic group. Should the Serbs, for example, be allowed to stay in the town of Srebrenica, which they ethnically cleansed in 1995, simply because the 6000 former inhabitants are now dead and cannot cast their votes? To make matters worse, the Serb part of Bosnia is still under the control of indicted war criminals, who prevent refugees from returning to their former homes. Implementing the election’s results over the following months will be an insurmountable task. Since, the election results will effectively provide an ongoing source of conflict and the United States will come under renewed pressure not to withdraw its troops from Bosnia in July 1998.

Fall of 1997 brought us the deaths of two prominent international icons, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa. Princess Diana’s car crash in Paris was bizarre and unexpected. Her life constantly took unexpected turns during the last five years, culminating in her bizarre car crash in Paris. In contrast, Mother Teresa died in a quieter, more predictable manner. Her health had been deteriorating for quite a while, and as a result, she had already chosen a successor at her mission.
Perhaps this is why the world reacted to the Princess’ death with a flood of emotions - outrage, sadness, and respect- and received the nun’s death with something bordering on apathy and indifference. While Princess Diana made it to the front cover of both Time and Newsweek, Mother Theresa was given only passing attention by the media. There seems to be a general consensus that the nun should be revered for her lifetime accomplishments. Unfortunately, there is no sincere desire to do so on the part of the media, the Indian Government or the Catholic Church.
The Government of India did organize a state celebration, which included a 31-gun salute and visits by foreign heads of state. For security purposes, attendance had to be limited and Mother Teresa was kept away from those who knew her best and mattered to her the most - the poor and destitute of Calcutta. Moreover, as very few heads of state actually turned up for the funeral, (presumably because they didn’t think it merited enough importance), the funeral turned out to be an embarrassment, not just for the Indian government, but more significantly, an insult to the nun.
The Catholic Church will soon begin the process of considering Mother Teresa’s case for sainthood. At first glance, this move seems to be a positive step. Canonization is a complicated process which will inevitably mix the nun’s self-effacing and simple life with church politics.
Since the world media, the heads of states, the Indian Government, and the Catholic Church have all been so utterly hopeless in reacting to Mother Teresa’s death, perhaps they should have just left it to the people who knew her best to respond to her departure. A funeral open to the public of Calcutta would probably have been attended by millions - it wouldn’t have been very showy and extravagant but then again, Mother Teresa didn’t really care much for such things. It would have meant people sincerely mourned her death-that, at least, she deserved.

On September 11, the Scottish people demonstrated their warm and enthusiastic support for devolution in a two-part referendum. This devolution will help to diffuse Scottish sentiment for independence, but Westminster will retain a monopoly over national policy matters such as foreign policy, defense, and national economic policy. On issues such as health and education, however, London will devolve its power to Scotland.
In a resounding endorsement of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s plans for Scottish devolution, over 60% of the Scottish population cast their ballots, voting 3-1 in favor of the new independent Scottish parliament. They also voted 2-1 to give it tax-varying powers to raise or lower income taxes by up to 3 percent for public spending. For the British conservatives who opposed devolution, this represents yet another blow following the loss of all their remaining seats in Scotland after the May general election. In a rarely seen alliance of interests, Labour, Liberals, and SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) all supported devolution, with Tony Blair and Liberal Democratic Leader Paddy Ashdown characterizing the “Yes, yes!” campaign as a “grass-roots people’s campaign.” Mean while, former Tory Prime Minister John Major and current conservative leader William Hague continued to warn of the dangers of a Scottish parliament in their “No, no!” campaign. They fear that it would accelerate the breakup of the union by creating an institutional alternative to Westminster. Theoretically, SNP politicians could use the new parliament to endorse independence if political conflict between the two major parties arises, or simply when an incompatible Tory government comes to occupy Downing Street. Other opponents asked why the Scots should have the power to vote on matters affecting the English in Westminster, when the English can’t vote on Scottish matters in the new Scottish parliament.
From a political point of view, the new Scottish Parliament could serve as a basis for a “new kind of politics” following Britain’s constitutional reforms. Doubts arise, however, when considering the economic implications. Not surprisingly then, Conservatives chose to concentrate on the tax-varying power issue. Opponents of devolution have found eager allies in the business community which feared that the new Parliament’s power to raise income taxes would make Scottish industry uncompetitive. Conservative arguments were promptly dismissed as unfounded by the opposition, and ultimately failed to persuade the majority of the Scottish population. The alliance between the Scottish nationalists and Labor is a fragile one at best but the Conservatives present an even less attractive option; increasingly, they appear to be united only in a grudging ideological opposition to any kind of change, unable to offer Scotland anything of consequence now or in the future.
It is imperative that Britain come to terms with the fact that the recognition of an independent legislative mechanism is a critical element of national self-government. If Britain is intent on pursuing the progressive-minded agenda that Tony Blair confidently advocates, then Scottish devolution is the first step in the right direction. The affirmative vote for devolution is politically significant but it also has symbolic meaning: the vote in favor came on the 700th anniversary of William Wallace’s victory over the English at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.

On July 14, 1997, disaster struck at the International Maccabiah Games being held near Tel Aviv. As the delegation from Australia was crossing the pedestrian bridge above the Yarkon River on their way into the stadium, the bridge collapsed. Over 60 people fell into the river and two were killed. But they were not killed by the severity of their fall nor by drowning. Rather, each had swallowed a small amount of water containing lethal toxins. Two more athletes died a few days later, also from the water.
The government claims that the water was safe and contained no chemicals, but the lungs of the victims were severely damaged by poisons. Many of the other athletes who fell into the river and the police rescue workers who waded in are still sick from their encounter with the deeply contaminated water.
One culprit may be an insecticide sprayed on the river to kill mosquito larvae a few days before the tragedy. The government contends that the spray was harmless, despite the fact that they knew it had been deemed harmful to humans and is banned in other countries.
Authorities have long ignored the chemicals, pesticides, and oils dumped into the river, allowing people to use the river for boating, fishing, and other recreational activities. Only in recent years has a modern sewage plant been built to clean up some of the waste that goes into the river.
The Yarkon River is not alone in its deadly state. Almost all the major rivers in Israel, and many throughout the world, are contaminated. This kind of environmental and health problem develops when urbanization occurs too fast and without regulations. Without restraints,the quality of the land, air and water of our planet have been deteriorating. And only now, after years of neglect, are people realizing that there is a problem.

On September 5, Juan Antonio Samarach, chairman of the International Olympic Committee, awarded Athens the Games of the XVIII Olympiad. Athens was undeniably the best candidate. Here is a run down of why, from a historical, political, athletic, and functional perspectives:
Athens’s most obvious advantage is the fact that Greece is the birthplace of the Games. This fact, if for no other reason, provides a brilliant theme for the Athens Games. Athens did a wonderful job of capitalizing on this theme during the World Track and Field Championships held in Athens in August. After all, no city in the world can hold a marathon race that traces the exact route of the ancient trail run by Pericles’ messenger.
Politically speaking, Greek support for the Games has been overwhelming. All 300 members of the Greek parliament voted in favor of the Games, reflecting the 95 percent support the Bid Committee enjoyed from the public. Led by its ambitious mayor, Dimitris Avramaplous, and an energetic former MP, Yianna Angelopoulou-Daskalaki, Athens enjoyed a bid backed by an entire nation.
From a structural standpoint, Athens is well on its way. seventy percent of the stadiums are already in use and considered to be the very best in Europe.
The remaining infrastructure projects, including a new airport, metro system, inter-city highway network, and Olympic Village, are underway or are in the initial stages of planning. Finally, Athens has played host to international sporting events, such as, World and European championships in basketball, soccer,
and track and field.
Athens, a wonderful, European city with a brilliant athletic tradition of any city on the planet will offer us a different version of the Games. It will draw us back to the real spirit of amateur athleticism of the first games in 776 B.C.