Parliamentary Assembly

Ladies and gentlemen members of the Assembly, it is with sincere feelings of high esteem that I appear in front of the Council of Europe, an organisation dedicated to protecting the great ideals of democracy – the individual and social rights, as well as the rights of peaceful co-existence and co-operation among countries. It is an organisation that boasts an impressive record of success in that field. Indeed, for the whole duration of the cold war the Council of Europe was a staunch supporter of democratic principles. Its very existence and action was vindicated in the most manifest way by the collapse of the communist regimes that sealed the final prevalence of those precious values.

The sensitivity to these great principles, to which everyone of you is firmly committed, is expressed both in your national parliaments and in this Assembly, which I have the honour to address. You are the most genuine spokesmen and spokeswomen of democratic ideas and the most sincere advocates of individual rights. Truth, justice and humanistic values are the criteria invoked by your Council when called to decide upon issues that fall under its jurisdiction. However, it happens sometimes that other influences prevail over your decisions – influences that oppose and hinder your manifest will. In fact, the decisions of governments – and let us not forget that those decisions are implemented – are very often dictated by geopolitical or economic interests. I do not want to underplay the importance of those interests, but I firmly believe, as you all do, that the great human values and principles must not give way and lose ground to those interests.

In addressing you, I recall the time when, almost thirty years ago, at the apogee of the cold war, the struggle against the expansion of communist totalitarianism prevailed over any other concern – even over those principles that the free world is meant to protect and serve. Yet during that time, the Council of Europe had the courage to defend its principles by expelling the Greek military regime from this sacred Assembly, which is dedicated to the respect of human rights – the human rights that constitute the basis and foundation of every true democratic form of government.

Such a brave decision must have represented the worst humiliation that the military regime ever suffered and has significantly contributed to strengthening further the will of the Greek people to resist dictatorship. It indeed reassured the Greek people that there are still international organisations firmly committed to honouring their commitments instead of yielding to the cynicism that at that time characterised most of the governments, who were ready to sacrifice respect for democratic principles in the service of their short-sighted interests.

Having prevailed in once separated worlds and proved its supremacy over opposing ideologies, democracy has no more visible enemies to confront. Nevertheless, our countries’ attachment to the ideas of democracy and to freedom must not prevent us from identifying certain deficiencies and shortcomings of democratic institutions. As we all know, ideal democracy is a vision at which we should aim by constantly ameliorating our record. That is why I believe that democratic nations should continuously re-examine their institutions in order to make them more efficient. They should search for new forms of institutions that correspond to rapidly changing social conditions – capable of coping properly with emerging challenges. The existence of independent constitutional or administrative courts undoubtedly significantly enhanced the proper function of the state. I hope that, at this point, the Assembly will allow me to express my deep respect for those courts and their mission.

In referring to the shortcomings of democracy I have in mind the genuine and truly free democratic forms of government which are embarrassed by the deficiencies and difficulties that occur, such as their failing to cope effectively with complex contemporary social relations. I am not referring to the “forged” or fake regimes, which are democratic in name only. Fortunately, there are few of them, which are tolerated for economic or other reasons. Such nominally democratic regimes make the Council of Europe’s mission extremely important. I am aware that the Assembly has never ceased to search for, and to point out, the shortcomings of such countries, which could benefit greatly by such remarks.

I express the wish that the Council of Europe follow every country, with no exception — including, of course, my country – with a vigilant eye. In its whole course of action the Council of Europe should contribute to maintaining Europe’s role as an international standard bearer of the great ideals of freedom, democracy, justice and equality, as proclaimed by the French and, before the French Revolution, during the American Revolution. The ideals originate from Greece and constitute perhaps its most valuable legacy to the modem world.

In supporting democratic institutions and methods, and especially following the recent accession of new members of the Council of Europe, I believe that the Parliamentary Assembly’s role should be strengthened. Thus, the actual implementation of democracy, for which we all strive, will become broadly common property.

Modem democratic Greece, in addition to its dedication to the principles of peace and co-operation among countries, is particularly attached to the principles of civil rights and firmly committed to the respect for human rights. Prevalent proof of such respect is given on the one hand by its political practice and on the other by its adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights – as well as by the support that it has already given to the decisions of the Vienna Summit concerning the control procedures of the European Convention on Human Rights pertaining to the protection of ethnic minorities and the struggle against racial discrimination, xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

Only within a genuine democratic framework can appropriate solutions be found to problems related to minorities. At this point I should like to underline the attention paid by Greece to respecting the rights of the Muslim minority in western Thrace. That minority, consisting of people of Turkish origin, Pomaks and Gypsies, enjoys all the privileges of the Lausanne treaty. Such privileges, applying to the teaching of the Turkish language and the practice of Muslim religious worship, go beyond those recognised in relation to minorities in the various pertinent legal documents. It is worth mentioning, among other things, that the Muslim minority of western Thrace is the only Muslim group of people in Europe, including Turkey, which is ruled according to the holy law of Islam, the Shariah, concerning matters of family and hereditary law. The provisions of that law are applied by the religious leaders of the minority, the Muftis, who are consequently invested with judicial and administrative duties.

Greece would be only too happy had its neighbours shown the same respect for their respective obligations to the Greek minority. If that had been so, the number of its members in Constantinople would have been greater than the number of Muslims in Thrace – 115 000 to 120 000 instead of barely 2 000 mostly elderly people. Such terrible shrinkage is the result of both the repeated and violent persecution that the Greek minority suffered between 1955 and 1964 and the rule of terror under which they continue to live. That exasperating situation has been described more than once in the reports of the well-known organisation Helsinki Watch.

Moreover, the Greek population of the islands of Imvros and Tenedos would now total approximately 10 000 and be enjoying the special status of administrative autonomy under Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne, instead of having dwindled to 200 or 300 old people. Last but not least, had the Turkish authorities respected their international obligations, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the centre for orthodox Christians from all over the world, would not have been obliged to close down its printing house and its school of theology.

At the end of the last decade and during the beginning of the present one, we all witnessed unique historic events that reversed the political, military and ideological events that had characterised the European landscape for more than forty years. With the will of their peoples, countries of central and eastern Europe have adopted forms of democratic government and democratic structures of societies and economies. The co-operation of those countries and their eventual accession to European institutions emerged right from the beginning as an imperative political necessity in order to attain two objectives.

The first aim was to manifest the solidarity of all other European countries to peoples attempting the transition from authoritarian regimes to a more modern, pluralist and democratic form of government founded on respect for human rights, a free market economy, equal rights and the rule of law.

The second objective was to minimise the danger from the upheavals inherent in every transitional period of profound change.

The response of the Council of Europe to this challenge was highly successful. Within barely six years, seventeen new member states were added and five more have obtained special guest status until full membership becomes possible. The objective of this open-door policy has been to promote the unity of all European countries, based on a common vision and the values of Europe’s political and cultural legacy, summed up by respect for human dignity.

The fulfilment of this aim, however, has proved to be much more painful than thought at first. The harsh realities of increased unemployment and limited social solidarity frustrated these peoples’ expectations of rapid economic progress and prosperity, and gave rise to elements of state instability that could jeopardise not just democratic institutions but even peace itself.

These phenomena are even more striking in the Balkans, where they take the form of social unrest or bloody conflict, thus creating the danger of a spillover into a much broader area. As a Balkan country, Greece is naturally worried by these developments; she enthusiastically offers her support to every effort aimed at stabilising and consolidating democracy in neighbouring countries. Compared with other countries Greece is privileged to have a better understanding of the problems, possible developments and needs of the region.

Thus Greece deems it necessary that the Balkan countries receive enough economic aid from Europe to cope with their enormous economic problems. Here I refer not just to Albania, where economic difficulties and widespread disillusionment have given rise to extensive social disturbance. I refer also to countries such as Romania and Bulgaria which, to proceed from a centrally planned economy to the free market, need financial support in the form of European Union programmes, loans from international organisations, and investment by foreign businessmen. I hope that they will not be left alone, without help, and that Europe will realise its responsibility towards them.

Unfortunately, economic difficulties are not the only danger facing the Balkans. There are also directly expressed threats to peace that must be countered. The sole method of dealing with them – apart from respect for democratic principles – is unconditional respect for international law, customary as well as conventional, starting with observance of the UN charter.

Greece is firmly convinced that the Council of Europe, in its capacity as the depository of democratic principles and ideals based on the rule of law, will be called upon, with all other international organisations, to play a crucial role in securing peaceful coexistence between its member states. That peaceful coexistence is under threat in south-eastern Europe because of Turkey’s systematic refusal to accept the validity of international law and to comply with obligations deriving from it – going so far as to issue overt threats of war in her National Assembly.

The main cause of tension in the area was initially Turkey’s refusal to recognise the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as codified in 1982, according to which islands are entitled to their continental shelf in exactly the same way as a mainland country. In her efforts to have the Aegean continental shelf split in two, Turkey flouts the convention – as if there were no Greek islands scattered around the Aegean.

Other clear provisions of international law have also been disregarded since; Turkey has questioned Greece’s right – the right of every country – to expand its territorial waters to twelve miles. The climax came with the dispute, barely a year ago, over Greece’s sovereignty over the Imia rock islets, in the Dodecanese, and Turkey’s subsequent discovery of other areas of rock islets in the Aegean whose sovereignty was still unclear.

All this comes seventy-four years after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Turkish policy has imaginatively named these places the “grey areas”, even though she knows only too well that under the Lausanne treaty of 1923 Turkey gave up all previous rights over islands and islets beyond three nautical miles from her mainland coasts.

Another well known example of arbitrary behaviour by Turkey is the case of Cyprus, where Turkish troops continue to occupy the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus twenty years after the 1974 invasion, in defiance of Security Council decisions and UN General Assembly resolutions. Here, too, Turkey is preventing a just and viable solution.

Greece, for her part, sincerely wants to normalise relations with Turkey. The aim of her policy is not to enter into dispute with a neighbouring country – far from it. Greece, however, is not prepared to go so far as to give up sovereign rights to which she is entitled under international law. Greece would be happy if tension between the two countries ceased, since it is not Greece provoking the tension. On the contrary; Greece suffers from it, in the form of high expenditure on defence procurement, being compelled to shadow Turkey’s much bigger stockpile of armaments. This Greece has to do even though that expenditure endangers her efforts to achieve convergence with the economies of the more developed member states of the European Union.

Being unwilling to enter into dialogue over her sovereign rights, Greece has proposed to Turkey a step-by-step negotiating procedure, starting with recourse to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which could result in the normalisation of relations.

Although faced with unfounded claims and threats, Greece reacts with moderation, proposing the way of reason which is also, of course, the way of justice. As Turkey reckons that she is in the right over the continental shelf and the legal status of the Imia islets, she may well resort to the court in The Hague. Greece relies on that court’s judgment.

It is the duty of the international community, I believe, to point out to Turkey the need to respect international legal order and to use the legal procedures provided for by international law; that is the way to guarantee security and peace in Europe. It was the Helsinki Final Act which explicitly obliged all countries to respect the territorial status quo that was in force before the second world war or which ensued after its end.

My country, ladies and gentlemen and members of the Assembly, does not wish to stand in Turkey’s way to the west, and we have declared as much in the most formal way. Greece is aware that the mutual benefit of the two countries lies in peaceful coexistence and co-operation. Let Turkey listen to the voice of reason – that will mark the beginning of a new era in relations between the two countries, with positive effects not only for the two countries but for the whole of Europe, too.

Allow me to refer briefly to the European Union because I believe that its policies are of interest to all European countries, including those who are not members.

Our aged continent no longer suffers from the scourges that led to two world wars, but it still finds itself in the midst of events that continue to cause considerable pressure. Especially during the last five years, the European Union was often called on to make important decisions on the present and future of Europe. This led to European Union policies that were sometimes successful, as with German unification and the adjustment of the North Atlantic alliance to the new realities of European security, but which were sometimes awkward and hasty, as in the case of the former Yugoslavia.

The Maastricht Treaty created a European Union that oscillates between completion of its economic integration and the less accepted intergovernmental co-operation in foreign, defence and security policy. The latter has been severely criticised – for example, the stance taken in relation to the Yugoslav problem.

We all know that the political union of Europe is far from being a reality. However I believe that the European ideal, based on the consciousness of a common destiny and a shared culture, will finally prevail. Despite the difficulties, the European Union is, in the long run, a non-reversible reality. Now that the euphoria created by the end of the cold war yields to new anxieties, there is an urgent need for the development of a stable and effective foreign and defence policy for the European Union.

On the direction that we have to take in order to reinforce the Union’s external action, our view is, as one might expect, that the intergovernmental function of the European Union has probably reached its limits. Its inherent weaknesses have resulted in the Union’s limited presence and influence at crucial international developments over the past few years. Its political union can be completed successfully only if it transcends the ethnic state while fully respecting all the particular ethnic, religious and cultural characteristics of each member state.

Of course, it is not easy to describe this course of action in detail; in any case, it would not be necessary as we still have a long way to go. Yet from now on we have to intensify our efforts to consolidate stability throughout Europe and guarantee the protection of the territorial integrity of the Union as well as of its member states through the adoption of a clause and the relevant mechanisms of mutual assistance.

With reference to individual rights, I would like to remind you that in the past we meant by that term the political rights of the individual as they were codified in various constitutional laws dating back to the time of the American and French revolutions. Nowadays the concept of individual rights has broadened and has been linked to the concept of social rights, meaning the rights of the citizen to claim that the state take care of the problems with which they are preoccupied – for example, the securing of jobs, working conditions, unemployment benefits, free education, housing, the protection of people with special needs, public health and, of course, environmental issues.

Today, social problems are no longer examined on the basis of expediency, and no one disputes the need for a social policy on the part of the state. The problem lies in the subsequent economic cost and the inability of the state to meet it. A number of states which had managed to achieve considerable progress in this sphere by obtaining the necessary funds through high taxation of higher incomes are now compelled, in the face of newly emerging economic difficulties, to reduce social benefits. Others are simply unable to reach their social objectives. Unemployment and the failure to deal with it effectively, continuing economic hardship, the duty of the member states of the European Union to meet certain economic criteria accepted in the form of legal conventional obligations, progress in technology and much else besides cause difficulty and obstruct the achievement of acceptable solutions. The prolongation of this situation gives rise to intense social pressure, often resulting in social unrest. Ideological diversities may have lost steam, yet social pressure continues to exist – that is precisely the situation that confronts us.

Unfortunately, I have no solutions to propose. I will limit myself to saying that, although business activity is facilitated and a high return on invested capital is the main aim of the private sector, not much thought is given to the problems of the workers.

The Council of Europe was absolutely right, after the end of the cold war, to make economic and social problems a central theme through the adoption of the European Social Charter and its continuing respect for the rights of working people. The Council of Europe will thus be able effectively to help youth overcome its lack of confidence and its indifference to the ideals of European integration, something explained by the fact that young people do not seem to expect a direct answer to their problems from such integration. Young people may embrace anarchist movements or turn to narcotics.

I should not like to conclude my speech without referring to the scourge of racism. It is clearly unacceptable that people should suffer from discrimination because they may be different or belong to a different group – no matter what group. Respect for the particularity of “the other” constitutes a fundamental element of civilisation. In this world, where communication among peoples has intensified, the cultural network of Europe is inevitably subject to a continuous adaptation process through the assimilation of new elements. The European citizen must prove in deed what is usually declared in words – that is, respect for all that which is not simply the product of abstract theoretical thought but the issue of bloody conflict to which we owe the survival and further development of European civilisation.

In conclusion, I assure you once more that it is my pleasure to be here today. Please accept my thanks for your invitation as well as your patience and attention.

I shall be glad to take your questions now.