The following speech was delivered by the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos on October 19, 1995 at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. It is reproduced in its entirety with express authority from His Excellency.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to thank you most sincerely and to express my deepest appreciation for the invitation you extended to me. This is a special day for me, as I am well aware that I find myself in one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in the world where, History prepares its forces, where so many men and women destined to leadership in thought and science as well as politics are to be found. Your invitation has brought to my mind the many Harvard graduates who left their mark or still shape history in America and the world--their merits being tested in peace as well as in war.
In addressing myself to an audience such as the present one, I thought it worthwhile to explain, as briefly as possible, Greece’s policies. These policies often seem to bewilder the foreign public which could not possibly be aware of the vicissitudes of a region as complex and complicated as the Balkans. This is why I shall gladly take advantage of this opportunity to answer any question of yours at the end of this lecture.
I do not need to remind you that Greece, a peninsula situated between Europe and Asia in the Eastern Mediterranean, found herself at the center of the course of History. As a result she came into contact with numerous peoples and fought long series of battles that sometimes resulted in glorious victories and sometimes in disastrous defeats. In all this interplay of forces and fortunes the Greek people preserved unabated their national consciousness. They also preserved their language, which despite the unavoidable evolution it has undergone, remains the same Greek language which has been spoken for thousands of years in our land.
The Greeks in their dedication to liberty invented Democracy which they introduced into the history of mankind. However, they were not always able to escape foreign rule. In the course of centuries they were subjected to other peoples. One of these peoples were the Romans, whom they influenced in a decisive way. Another one were the Ottomans. It was a great misfortune for the Greek people to fall under their sway at the very moment when the Renaissance was dawning in the West. As this event was spurred to a great extent by eminent Greek scholars, it impossible for them to participate as a people in the subsequent cultural development of Europe and plunged them into a long period of darkness relieved only by the links to the West afforded by the flourishing Greek communities to be found in various parts of Europe.
Greece emerged as an independent state one hundred and sixty five years ago, bloodied and utterly drained from centuries of enslavement. Once they recovered their political independence, the Greek people turned decisively towards Western Europe and readily assimilated its cultural and scientific gains. In the field of culture and the arts there arose writers and poets of worldwide distinction, such as the two Nobel prize winners Seferis and Elytis, as well as other great artists in the field of music, of the cinema and of the beaux arts. Greece’s economic development has also been impressive and our country occupies an honourable place among developed countries.
In order to complete the freedom of the Greek Nation, Greece has fought in regional and world wars and has paid for her presence amidst the democratic nations with blood, destruction and sacrifice. Today, Greece is the only country in the region with a solidly established democratic regime as well as the only country to be a member of both NATO, which she joined in 1952, and of the European Union, which she joined as a full member in 1980. This renders her a factor of stability of great importance for the Balkans. This is all the more so since she is one of the very few countries of the region not to harbour territorial ambitions against her neighbours with whom she wants to maintain the best possible relations and asks in return only that they respect the rules of International Law.
In this spirit the Greek Government has made a determined effort to normalize relations with Albania and is doing its best in order to remove whatever obstacles might still exist. However, some serious problems still remain owing to the reluctance of the Albanian side to allow the large Greek minority living in the southern part of Albania, known to Greeks as Northern Epirus, to fully enjoy the rights internationally recognized to ethnic minorities. The most fundamental of these rights is the right to be taught in their own language, as well as the right of religious freedom. This last point involves the recognition and the unhindered functioning of the Orthodox Church to which the Greek minority belongs. Greece, for her part, continues to show her goodwill and the sincerity of her friendly disposition towards Albania by allowing hundreds of thousands of mostly illegal Albanian migrants to stay and work in the country. Their remittances, amounting to three hundred million dollars a year, are a fundamental boost to the Albanian economy.
The grave consequences of the collapse of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia are a matter of serious concern for Greece. Given the historical record of the region, it was a mistake on the part of the West to accelerate the break-up of Yugoslavia without first solving some well-known-problems. Therefore it was only to be expected that nationalistic conflicts would ensue. Greece firmly believes that no Balkan or other neighbouring country should involve itself in the ongoing conflict since this would increase the danger of seeing it spread. Accordingly, she herself avoided any involvement other than offering her objective mediation whenever and wherever it could prove useful. Greece does not support the Serbs at the expense of the Croats or the Moslems. She apportions to each party the responsibility that belongs to it and refuses to accept the notion that any single party is exclusively responsible for the conflict or the war crimes.
The collapse of Yugoslavia had a direct impact on a preexisting problem which had bedevilled Greece’s relations with that country. The problem had to do with the small regional area which in the last fifty years had received the name of Republic of Macedonia. This problem was aggravated by the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation. It could not therefore be left unsolved any longer without endangering the stability of the whole region. Greece had to act. Some countries were unable to understand the reason for this owing to their defective knowledge of the travails the Balkans underwent and the perils which threatened Greece since the beginning of the century in that area.
I will not deal with ancient history as I deem it perfectly needless to dwell on such well established facts as that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, that Alexander the Great was a Greek as were his successors Antigonus, Ptolemy, Antipater and Seleucus. Even Cleopatra was Greek. It is more useful to remind you of some important events in recent history.
Towards the end of the previous century and the beginning of the present one, the region of ancient Macedonia was still ruled by the Ottoman Empire. At the time, the population was mixed, with a clear plurality of Greeks. According to the historical record there were many Greeks, fewer Bulgarians, and even fewer Serbs, Albanians and Turks. There was no ethnic group called Macedonian.
The impending collapse of the Ottoman Empire prompted a clash between the two major ethnic groups, the Greeks and the Bulgarians, who engaged in a bitter guerrilla war. The Macedonian Struggle, as this war is known, prevented the realization of Bulgaria’s aim to conquer this Greek region but left the Greek population with lasting memories of destruction and suffering. There followed two Balkan Wars. In the first, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Greece allied themselves against Turkey and expelled it from the greater part of the Balkan peninsula. Bulgaria’s ambition to annex the entire Macedonian region was the cause of the second Balkan war which pitted her against her former allies and was very bloody. Bulgaria lost but did not renounce its aggressive ambitions and in the two world wars that followed, as an ally of Germany, Bulgaria twice occupied the northern Greek province of Macedonia during the years 1916 to 1918 and 1941 to 1945. During both these periods the local population suffered greatly. After Germany’s defeat in both world wars which entailed also the defeat of Bulgaria, the latter was not in a position to raise anymore claims against Greece. Marshal Tito took advantage of this new international situation in order to pursue to his own advantage the same aggressive and expansionist policy against Greece. In 1944 he gave the name of Macedonia to that part of Serbia which the latter had acquired as a result of the Balkan Wars, made it into a separate Federal Republic, and invented a new nationality by naming the population of this Republic the "Macedonian people." He also created a new language by dubbing the local idiom "Macedonian language." The newly founded Republic was given the name "Macedonia" in order to constitute the nucleus of a much larger state which would include in time both the Greek province of Macedonia and the region of Pirin in Bulgaria. The name itself was central to the success of the whole operation which depended on fostering the new Macedonian national sentiment and cultivating irredentist feelings.
Greece was not alone in condemning this policy. The then U.S. Secretary of State Stettinius in a letter to American diplomatic missions abroad pointed out the dangers involved in such a policy and condemned it outright as unfair and unacceptable. However, after Tito broke away from the Soviet Union and made overtures to the West, Western interests dictated that Greece should not engage in too open a quarrel on the Macedonian issue.
Once Yugoslavia collapsed, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asked to be recognized as an independent state under the name "Macedonia." As we have seen, this was obviously unacceptable for Greece since the name Macedonia is a vehicle for irredentist ambitions. These ambitions were also given expression in a Constitution which affirms the existence of a Macedonian people allegedly inhabiting the wider Macedonian area and envisages its eventual unification. Maps were printed which included, within a single Macedonia, the Northern Greek Province of Macedonia. School text-books were printed presenting a distorted historical viewpoint in order to support these aims. Recognition of this Republic under the name Macedonia would also have legitimized the usurpation of the historical name and with it of one of the most glorious chapters in the history of the Greek people. That such fears were not unfounded was soon to be proven by the Government of Skopje’s decision to include in their flag the emblem of the Macedonian dynasty discovered in 1977 near the modern Greek town of Vergina.
It should be evident by now that the name "Macedonia" encapsulates the essence of the policy pursued by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the expense of my country. It should also be readily understandable that if the Government of Skopje were to renounce the name of Macedonia it would renounce at the same time the idea of incorporating the Greek province of Macedonia within its borders. In view of this Greece had no choice but to react the way she did. Nonetheless my country, faithful to her peaceful intentions, accepted at the same time the existence of this state. Greece stated that she had no claims against it, and only asked that it desists from its expansionist and aggressive policies and the surest way of doing this is to renounce a name which identifies the state with such policies. This position is reflected in the Interim Agreement which was recently signed in New York.
Our relations with Bulgaria and Rumania are extremely smooth and we have developed a close cooperation in many fields. There is growing economic cooperation and a large number of Greek businessmen are making significant investments in both countries. This cooperation will receive a major boost from the implementation of various important projects such as new road links to Northern Europe and the construction of a pipeline linking Burgas to Alexadroupolis. Greece has publicly stated that she favours the enlargement of the European Union to include these two Balkan countries in accordance with their stated desire. In the near future I shall pay a visit to Bucharest, the capital of Rumania, and soon after I shall visit Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. Indeed, our relations with these two countries constitute an example of good neighbourly relations.
In fact there is but one country in the region with which relations from time to time become dangerously tense and this country is Turkey. If Turkey were to continue her present policies she would pose a threat to the stability of the whole region. In Cyprus, Turkey refuses to comply with the United Nations Resolutions and in the Aegean she insists on putting forth arbitrary claims. You will allow me to dwell a little longer on this point as it concerns not only Greece but Europe and NATO and, in consequence, also the United States.
Concerning Cyprus, Turkey took advantage in 1974 of the criminal ttempt against the President of the Republic, Archibishop Makarios, in order to invade Cyprus, allegedly to reestablish the constitutional order. However, once the illegally installed regime collapsed, Turkey not only did not withdraw her troops from the small piece of land she had initially occupied but on the contrary undertook a new military operation, this time without any excuse whatsoever, which resulted in the occupation, still in effect, of more than 37% of the island. Moreover, in the first ethnic cleansing operation in Europe after the second World War, she compelled, in the wake of the military operation, the Greek Cypriot population (some one hundred and eighty thousand people) to flee their ancestral land.
Since that time Turkey is refusing to comply with theResolutions of both the Security Council (353/74) and the General Assembly that demand the withdrawal of the occupying forces in order to allow the two Communities to freely negotiate an internal settlement. Instead, she has installed tens of thousands of settlers from Anatolia in the part of the island she occupies in order to alter the demographic ratio which on the eve of the invasion was 80% Greek, 18% Turk with the remaining 2% made up of other ethnic groups such as the Maronites and the Armenians. On top of all this, in 1983 she prompted the leader of the Turkish-Cypriot Community to unilaterally declare an independent "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." The Security Council, by its resolution declared this declaration of independence null and void and called upon all member states not to recognize it. To this day Turkey is the sole country not to comply.
After the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of the two Germanies, Cyprus remains the only European state which is still divided by military occupation in defiance of international law. Turkey even goes so far as to invoke the impasse, for which she herself is responsible, in order to demand that the Republic of Cyprus not be allowed to join the European Union, alleging that this would make any solution of the problem impossible. In all logic, however, membership of the European Union should facilitate a solution of the Cyprus problem since it would provide additional guarantees to the Turkish Community and would also help to fill the economic gap which separates at present the two Communities.
The stand of Turkey in the Aegean is also manifestly contrary to International Law. The Law of the Sea provides that islands are entitled to a continental shelf of their own. Turkey arbitrarily refuses to accept this rule and demands that the continental shelf be divided between Greece and Turkey by drawing a line in the middle of the Aegean as if the innumerable Greek islands did not exist. In order to justify this refusal Turkey alleges that the Aegean Sea constitutes a special case to which the provisions of the Law of the Sea could not possibly apply. She conveniently forgets that this thesis was put forward in the course of the debates preceding the adoption of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea and was rejected by the Conference. If anybody is entitled to invoke the peculiarity of the Aegean, it is Greece, on account of the chain of islands stretching throughout the Aegean.
Diametrically different from Turkey is the attitude of Greece towards International Law. Since 1975, she has proposed that the two ountries have recourse to the International Court of Justice at the Hague for the limitation of the continental shelf. Mr. Smirel, who was at the time the Prime Minister of Turkey, initially accepted this proposal only to change his mind a few months later.
Since then, Turkey maintains her refusal, although this proposal is the only way to solve the problem, and insists that the difference be given a political solution. Turkey aims at bypassing the rules of International Law imposing her arbitrary opinions although they are devoid of any legal or other foundation. Turkey asserts that the implementation of International law would cause her wrong. But if a country is wronged by the Law, this simply means it is in the wrong.
The situation is similar concerning the question of the territorial waters of Greece. Whereas the Law of the Sea recognizes that every country has the right to extend its territorial waters up to 12 miles, Turkey threatens Greece with war if she were to extend her territorial waters beyond their present six mile limit. This new, totally illegal, demand is based on the false assertion that should Greece extend its territorial waters Turkey will be denied access to the Aegean sea and will suffocate because of the presence in the Aegean of so many Greek islands. This assertion is utterly false since it is well-known that the Law of the Sea assures everybody the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. This right is recognized even to military vessels and submarines. It should moreover be noted that when the provisions of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea were being discussed, Turkey tried and failed to convince the participants to accept her own views on this matter. The threat of Turkey to declare war against Greece is plainly due to the fact that she is well aware that she lacks any valid legal argument to support her position. That is why she resorts to the only principle that might favour her, namely that might makes right.
This threat has been officially expressed last July in a Resolution of the Turkish National Assembly and is backed up by a large number of landing craft stationed on the shores of Asia Minor, opposite the Greek islands and is accompanied by declarations of Turkey’s military superiority. I feel sincere sorrow that no democratic State was moved by such a threat to rebuke Turkey and remind her that the U.N. Charter forbids not only the use of force but also the threat of the use of force.
I also feel compelled to mention the behaviour of the Turkish authorities towards the Oecumenical Patriarch who is constantly the target of false allegations on the part of the Turkish press. Turkish authorities have closed the printing press of the Patriarchate and more importantly the Theological School of Chalki. This last measure poses a threat to the very survival of the Patriarchate since it deprives it of the ability to train new members of the clergy and to renew its ranks.
Greece does not engage in any hostile act against Turkey and the assertion that our country actively supports and trains members of the PKK is totally false and for this very reason Turkey has been unable to produce a shred of proof in its support. The United States, who are in a position to know, should openly reject these false accusations. It is not the intention nor the policy of Greece to engage in constant disputes with Turkey nor to oppose her legitimate political aims. This is why Greece has accepted the conclusion of a Customs Union between Turkey and the European Union. If this Agreement is in danger of rejection by the European Parliament, this is because of the undemocratic provisions in the Turkish Constitution and the lack of respect of Human Rights on the part of the Turkish state.
Greece joined the European Economic Community as a full member in 1980 in the belief that only a fully unified Europe will be able to play the global role to which it is entitled on account of its economic and cultural potential. We are all too aware of the difficulties lying in the way of such a goal. National aims are still being pursued at the expense of common European aims, and the diverging interests of member states often come into conflict. Nevertheless, we will continue our endeavours to further the realization of a fully integrated Europe at the Intergovernmental Conference which is scheduled for next year.
In sum, I would like to stress once more that Greece wishes to live in peace with all her neighbours. She does not go out of her way to create trouble for any of them. The only thing she asks is that they abide by International Law and international treaties and conventions. However, Greece is not prepared to give in to unjust and unreasonable demands and threats. It is her firm belief that the rules of International Law and the respect of international conventions should be the sole means of settling international disputes.
In closing I would like to assure you once more that I feel a special pleasure to be for the first time in your great country and I would like to address once more my warm thanks to this University for its kind invitation and to all of you for your patient attention despite my bad English.