MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE A. PAPANDREOU
TALKS FRANKLY ABOUT GREECE’S NEW FOREIGN POLICY

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH "TO VIMA"

SUNDAY 5 SEPTEMBER, 1999

---

Interview by N. Marakis

Photograph : Antonis Papantoniou
 

To Vima: You seem very healthy. It seems your comrades at the PASOK Executive Committee didn’t manage to shoot you down after all?

George A. Papandreou: I didn’t hear any shots. On the contrary, the Executive Committee unanimously accepted the proposal I submitted to the Prime Minister ten days ago, the day after the earthquake in Turkey. This proposal included a   recommendation that decisive initiatives and intervention on the part of Greece would not simply contribute to an improvement of the political climate, but would probably also have a significant impact on Turkey’s progress towards Europe.  I therefore proposed that a new financial package for Turkey should be created.
We decided that this package would be drawn up after discussions with all the relevant political leaders in Greece; and, of course, in conjunction with the European Commission which will address this issue at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers this weekend.  Finally, we also discussed the Greek proposal with our European counterparts.
I promptly announced this proposal to the public, and made it quite clear from the start that it was in now way linked to the question of whether Greece should lift its veto on EU financial aid to Turkey. This is a totally new package, which was received extremely warmly – not to say absolutely – by the majority of political parties and all the former Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Greece.

Including Mr. Pangalos?

Yes, including Mr. Pangalos. The proposal was unanimously accepted by the Governmental Committee on Wednesday 1 September.

So what is the final position of the government on this issue?

We are dealing with two separate packages, which are part of the so-called European Strategy for Turkey. The first package (ECU 135 million) is decided by a special majority vote. The second (ECU 15 million) has so far been vetoed by Greece. We will only consent once the necessary amendments are made, to ensure that these funds will be used exclusively to deal with the problems that have arisen as a result of the earthquake in Turkey. We are also proposing that humanitarian aid should be dispensed through existing EU institutions that deal with humanitarian issues. At some later stage, we would not be averse to discussing the conditions by which Turkey could reconstruct the area hit by the quake –  rebuilding houses, industries, and so on.
We maintain our reservations about the package of ECU 375 million earmarked for Turkey. However, this sum could be used towards preliminary financial assistance for Turkish entry into the EU, if the EU decides to recognize Turkey as a legitimate candidate for membership, which depends on certain preconditions Greece has set down.

Let’s try to clarify Greece’s strategy. Does Greece genuinely want Turkey to join the EU? Or is Greece having second thoughts?

I am in favor of Turkey moving closer to Europe because it is in the interests of Greece. This policy will help us deal with our problems with neighboring Turkey more effectively.
Judging from my meetings with the leaders of other political parties in the past few days, I believe that most parties in Greece agree with this. Of course, there are several issues that have not yet been solved – they are still on the table. But that is precisely why we feel that approaching Turkey will help us resolve these problems.

Many ministers have advocated similar tactics in the past. What new elements are involved this time?

I think that things are less static…There’s a new dynamic now. We cannot forget that recent events, though tragic, have created a new dynamic in our relations with Turkey. This dynamic has not yet generated any specific solutions to our problems regarding Turkey. But this is a historic opportunity…
Now both sides will have to demonstrate whether their intentions really are good. Greece will prove it has good intentions. Naturally, Turkey will also be judged according to its political actions. There are many openings, there is great potential for a new era in Greek Turkish relations to begin. But we will both be judged by our actions - and for Turkey this will have a direct impact on whether or not it will be accepted into the EU.
I believe that Greece has every reason to open up the way for Turkey to join Europe. In this respect, Turkey will not face obstacles placed in its way by Greece – instead Turkey will have to adopt European standards. These will not be issues raised by Greece to hinder Turkey’s entry into the EU: they are conditions set down by the EU, designed to encourage Turkey’s European prospects and to ensure greater regional stability. These conditions obviously include good neighborly relations, the resolution of the Cyprus problem, domestic problems such as reforms, human rights, and so on.
Our message is clear: we are ready to do whatever we can to help Turkey.
 

Photograph : Antonis Papantoniou
 

Nevertheless your argument involves a lot of “yes, buts…” Why don’t we just state plainly that we are in favor of Turkey’s entry into the EU?

We want to act as a catalyst within the EU that will promote Turkey’s European prospects. We want to play a leading role in Turkey’s progress towards Europe. Having said that, neither Greece nor the EU can go beyond a certain level unless Turkey is prepared to take the necessary steps conditional to EU entry. Greece is proposing a route to help Turkey reach this goal. But if Turkey wants to follow this route, Turkey has a responsibility to take decisive action to meet European demands.

Are we sending a new message to Turkey?

I believe this message must be communicated and is reaching more and more people. Greece has the potential to be Turkey’s greatest ally in her progress towards Europe. And Greece has the most to gain from Turkey’s progress towards Europe. At the same time, Turkey must prove that it has both the means and the political will to make the necessary changes, to accept its responsibilities and fulfill its obligations to Europe. That is the only way for Turkey to succeed in reaching the goal which it has set for itself.
In the aftermath of the recent earthquakes, the citizens of both Greece and Turkey surpassed their political leaders. They sent a message to all of us: work for peace. We must respond to that message with courage. Then we can genuinely say we have contributed to stability in the Balkans and friendship between our two nations.

Are we perhaps going from one extreme to another?  Are we overlooking the problems that sometimes arise due to the behavior of the Turkish government in the international arena?

Not at all. Throughout this process there are various legal and political procedures regarding Greek-Turkish relations. Inevitably, there are issues that concern us, sensitive issues which are especially pertinent to Greece, but not exclusively so. These issues also concern Europe in general. If Turkey were to say “I’m not interested in Europe”, in all likelihood issues such Cyprus, the International Court of The Hague, human rights, and so on, would have a different relevance. But since Turkey has expressed a desire to become a member of the European family, she has no alternative but to say: “I am ready to deal with these issues.” These issues can be addressed sooner or later (though of course the sooner the better) - but in any case they will be part of the route Turkey has chosen to follow. These are not issues that Greece is trying to burden Turkey with – as Turkey has accused us of doing in the past - they are obligations which Turkey has a duty to fulfill in her progress towards European acceptance.

Nevertheless, it appears that you were forced to submit to the pressure applied by Mr. Pangalos and other leading members of PASOK who disagree with this progress.

I repeat that our proposal was the very same proposal adopted by Mr. Pangalos. I would say that my friend Theodoros (Pangalos) tried to create an issue out of nothing. However, I disagree with the way Mr. Pangalos tried to demonize and discredit our policy in the public debate he provoked. Indeed, I believe that demonizing foreign policy cancels out the opportunity to engage in real debate and creates psychoses about who does and doesn’t represent the interests of our country. We all represent the best interests of our country. But my recent meeting with Mr. Pangalos confirmed that he basically adopted the same arguments we had put forward a week ago.

Amid this flurry of contradictory statements, we are in danger of obscuring the real content of these Greek initiatives…

Our decisions are a gesture of generosity. Greece was the first country to take the initiative to say to the EU: “Although we have vetoed Turkey for many years, we are now suggesting that we offer them money.” At the same time, we are saying to our counterparts in Ankara: “We want to help you overcome this humanitarian tragedy.” It would be self-defeating for us to undermine this bold and generous initiative.
The question of lifting the veto is not a current issue. I am not even sure whether it will be raised. And if it is, we will not take any decision. We are sticking to our position, which everyone knows well. A theoretical discussion about the veto has been opened up in Greece, which runs the risk of subverting the momentum created by our initiatives.  We must not be condemned to inactivity by the inertia and fear surrounding Greek Turkish relations in the past. One of the most topical issues we have to deal with now is what to do about the damages incurred by the earthquakes. Greece has asked Finland, as current President of the EU,  to put this issue on the daily agenda. The second major issue that will be discussed is Turkey’s entry into the EU – not in relation to financial aid, but in relation to Turkey’s eligibility as a candidate and Greece’s specific proposal regarding the course Turkey should follow in order to join the EU.

You have recently become the spokesman for an entirely new trend in Greek foreign policy. How will this affect your political ambitions to become party leader. Do you think it will increase or lessen your chances?

I would say that I am trying above all to realize our national priorities in the best possible way.

Do you think your way is the same as your predecessors?

I am sure that every minister has his own individual traits and ways of approaching things. Of course, personal objectives are often limited by a restrictive political framework.

Is it simply a matter of personality?

The fluidity of the political situation and regional developments allow for either a great many initiatives or an easy inertia. In previous years, there was a kind of ‘defensive patriotism’ that worked because there was a powerful sense of insecurity in the region. Greece’s role during the Cold War was quite insignificant and very limited. Of course, even during this difficult period, Andreas Papandreou dared to carry out a series of initiatives, often with great political costs. But he succeeded in pushing forward a policy that we are now able to realize today, which one could term ‘aggressive patriotism’.

By coining a new political term, are you trying to communicate a new message?

Our objective is not to invent new political terms. The fundamental goal is to promote Greece in a positive light, not by talking about old problems, fears and insecurities. We now have an opportunity to make a bold step forward, because Greece is now much stronger. From my experience, Greece is now viewed by other Balkan nations as a model country – a country that managed to transcend Balkan misery and leap forward with the introduction of a Euro-Balkan proposal.  In terms of our defense, we have succeeded in preserving and defending our national interests in full.
We have strengthened our position within the EU regarding political union, security, and foreign policy. We still have a long way to go, but we have made enormous progress. We are about to join the EMU. We have succeeded in acting on a higher political level in an international context. One could say that Greece has matured considerably since our neighbors have changed. We felt part of the Balkan problem, but we realized relatively quickly that we could be part of the solution, that we could defend our national interests - and those of our neighbors - by transcending difficulties and creating a regional vision. Our own problems will be dealt with as part of this vision, through a steady and consistent process of contacts and initiatives, and hard work.
So I think it is time we overcame our insecurity.
Greece is in a position to take ‘aggressive’ initiatives, to make bold moves, to raise critical issues that in the past might have made us feel accountable. We have progressed so much that we no longer need to have these fears.

Whether intentionally or not, you still haven’t answered my question about your leadership ambitions…

 I honestly do not harbor the kid of ambitions you are implying. My ambition is to contribute, to help…Often at the risk of personal cost…Because that’s my philosophy. As the third generation of a family of politicians who traditionally sought to empower democracy rather than to achieve power, it would be small-minded of me to set my sights on any particular office. Ultimately, it is most important for me to be able to approach my work creatively, to contribute to my particular domain in a fundamental way. That is what I am trying to do. Although it might have some of the advantages you mention, it also has enormous costs, which I would not even have to bear if my ambitions were focused elsewhere.

How do you feel after the experiences of the past few days? Will you continue to follow the same course of action? Are you optimistic or do you think the political cost is too great?

I would say exactly the opposite. I am determined to proceed, though of course, I will respect all the discussions with other parties in my decisions. I would like to emphasize that I do not engage in these discussions as a matter of form, but because as Minister of Foreign Affairs I respect the democratic procedure. I believe that consensus is a political value, not a sign of weakness. Every time I talk to any of my counterparts, in any country, I want to feel certain that our policy has the widest possible support and consensus. At the same time, this does not go against - on the contrary, I would say that it supports – the continuation and intensification of initiatives that Greece must take in all fields within this political framework.
When the widest possible consensus for national objectives is secured, this gives any Minister of Foreign Affairs the flexibility to take far more forward-looking and creative initiatives, and allows for new elements and new inventiveness in foreign policy.
These new elements are numerous. I have already mentioned citizen’s diplomacy. Economic, cultural, and environmental diplomacy are just some of the things that can be addressed through open diplomacy and public debate. These things shape the consciences and communicate messages to all citizens. A single image can often convey twice as much as a discussion between myself and one of my Turkish counterparts.

Do you feel confident that these ideas have the Prime Minister’s support?

The Prime Minister and I have a very good relations, both professionally and personally. Because of recent developments we are in very frequent personal contact, so – apart from daily tactical matters - the policy we are now implementing is the result of mutual interaction and influence.  As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I feel that the actions I take have the Prime Minster’s trust and support. Obviously, this is absolutely vital so that I can execute the task assigned to me as effectively as possible.
As the government and as a political party, our goal is to build peaceful relations with all Balkan nations, including Turkey. We represent a great patriotic movement that is undertaking peaceful initiatives that are free from taboos and crookedness. I identify completely with the Prime Minister’s perception of foreign policy.