Monday 28 February 2022

Το Διεθνές Δίκαιο και η Ρωσική Εισβολή στην Ουκρανία

Η εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία συνιστά παραβίαση του διεθνούς δικαίου και του Καταστατικού Χάρτη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Παραβιάζει κατάφωρα το άρθρο 2, παράγραφος 4 που δηλώνει ότι ένα κράτος πρέπει να απέχει από την χρήση βίας ή την απειλή χρήση βίας κατά της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας ή της πολιτικής ανεξαρτησίας οποιουδήποτε κράτους.

Ο Χάρτης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών περιέχει δύο εξαιρέσεις από την παραπάνω απαγόρευση. Η πρώτη επιτρέπει στο Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ να χρησιμοποιήσει βία εκ μέρους του ΟΗΕ για τη διατήρηση της ειρήνης και της ασφάλειας. Ωστόσο, απαιτείται ομόφωνη απόφαση από τα κράτη μέλη του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας πριν από μια τέτοια χρήση βίας. Η δέυτερη εξαίρεση είναι το άρθρο 51 που αναγνωρίζει το εγγενές δικαίωμα ενός κράτους για αυτοάμυνα αλλά και για συλλογική αυτοάμυνα έναντι ένοπλης επίθεσης.

Ο Ρώσος Πρόεδρος Πούτιν στην ομιλία του στις 23 Φεβρουαρίου 2022 προσπάθησε να νομιμοποίηση την Ρωσική εισβολή λέγοντας ότι είναι σύμφωνα με το διεθνές δίκαιο και παρέπεμψε στο άρθρο 51 του Χάρτη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Υποστήριξε ότι η εισβολή της Ρωσίας ήταν μια πράξη αυτοάμυνας αλλά και συλλογικής αυτοάμυνας που προστατεύει τόσο τη Ρωσία όσο και τους αυτονομιστικούς θύλακες στο Ντόνετσκ και το Λουχάνσκ από μια ένοπλη επίθεση από την Ουκρανία και το ΝΑΤΟ.

Ωστόσο, οι ισχυρισμοί του Πούτιν στερούνται νομικής αξίας. Πρώτον, η Ουκρανία δεν έχει επιτεθεί στη Ρωσία, ούτε έχει απειλήσει να επιτεθεί στη Ρωσία. Δεύτερον, ενώ το νομικό δόγμα της συλλογικής αυτοάμυνας επιτρέπει σε ένα κράτος να υπερασπιστεί ένα άλλο κράτος που δέχεται επίθεση, οι αυτονομιστικοί θύλακες στο Ντόνετσκ και το Λουχάνσκ δεν είναι κράτη αλλά αποτελούν κυρίαρχο έδαφος της Ουκρανίας. Το άρθρο 51 δεν ισχύει για μη κράτη και δεν μπορεί να το επικαλεστεί η Ρωσία (η οποία πρέπει να σημειωθεί μόνο πριν λίγες μέρες αναγνώρισε αυτούς τους θύλακες ως ανεξάρτητα κράτη – σε αντίθεση με τον υπόλοιπο κόσμο).

Τρίτον, οι ισχυρισμοί της Ρωσίας στερούνται τεκμηριωμένης βάσης, καθώς η Ουκρανία δεν έχει επιτεθεί σε αυτούς τους θύλακες, τουναντίον μάλλον η από Ρωσία οπλισμένη πολιτοφυλακή προσπάθησε να επιβάλει την απόσχιση προκαλώντας ένοπλη σύγκρουση εκεί. Τέλος, ακόμα κι αν η Ρωσία μπορούσε να δώσει μια κάποια νομική αιτιολόγηση στην εισβολή, αυτό δεν δικαιολογεί μια πλήρους κλίμακας εισβολή στην Ουκρανία και την εκτυλισσόμενη ανθρωπιστική καταστροφή.

Διεθνές Δίκαιο και Πολιτική

Η σχέση μεταξύ διεθνούς δικαίου και πολιτικής ήταν πάντα μια πολύπλοκη υπόθεση. Ο βαθμός στον οποίο η εθνική ασφάλεια θα πρέπει να επηρεαστεί από το διεθνές δίκαιο ή από ζητήματα «ηθικής» παραμένει θέμα σοβαρής συζήτησης μεταξύ μελετητών και αξιωματούχων εξωτερικής πολιτικής. Για δεκαετίες η Δύση και οι παγκόσμιοι σύμμαχοί της έχουν υιοθετήσει μια πιο φιλελεύθερη διεθνή άποψη για τις διεθνείς σχέσεις. Έχουν θεσπίσει διεθνείς κανόνες και θεσμούς μεταξύ κρατών με στόχο τη μακροπρόθεσμη συνεργασία και την αποτελεσματική επίλυση διαφορών. Είναι η «θεσμοποιημένη συνεργασία μεταξύ των χωρών βάσει καθιερωμένων κανόνων και αμοιβαίου σεβασμού» που ενστερνίζονται οι υποστηρικτές του φιλελεύθερου διεθνισμού. Προβάλλουν τις αξίες «της διεθνής τάξης, της ελευθερίας, της δικαιοσύνης και της ανεκτικότητας στις διεθνείς σχέσεις». Επιπλέον, οι φιλελεύθεροι διεθνιστές υποστηρίζουν ότι η υιοθέτηση δημοκρατικών αρχών από τα κράτη είναι το κλειδί για τη διασφάλιση της ειρήνης, καθώς οι δημοκρατίες θεωρούνται ότι σπάνια πηγαίνουν σε πόλεμο μεταξύ τους.

Αντίθετα, εισηγητές του πολιτικού ρεαλισμού στις διεθνείς σχέσεις πιστεύουν στην αναρχική φύση του κόσμου. Αμφισβητούν τον βαθμό στον οποίο το διεθνές δίκαιο έχει (ή και πρέπει να έχει) οποιαδήποτε βαρύτητα στη διαμόρφωση της εξωτερικής πολιτικής και της εθνικής ασφάλειας. Οι θεωρητές του ρεαλισμού υποστηρίζουν ότι τα κράτη δεν πρέπει πάντα να συμμορφώνονται με τις νομικές τους υποχρεώσεις, ειδικά όταν κάτι τέτοιο απειλεί εθνικά συμφέροντα. Σημείο αναφοράς της θεωρίας του ρεαλισμού αποτελεί ο Διάλογος των Μήλιων με τους Αθηναίους όπως μας το μεταδίδει ο αρχαίος Ιστορικός και στοχαστής Θουκυδίδης και ιδιαίτερα στην διακήρυξη των Αθηναίων ότι «το πρότυπο της δικαιοσύνης εξαρτάται από την ισότητα της δύναμης να επιβάλλει τη δικαιοσύνη και ότι στην πραγματικότητα οι ισχυροί κάνουν αυτό που τους επιτρέπει η δύναμη τους να κάνουν και οι αδύναμοι αποδέχονται αυτό που πρέπει να δεχτούν λόγο της αδυναμίας τους».

Ηγέτες όπως ο Ρώσος Πρόεδρος Πούτιν, ο πρώην Πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ Τραμπ, ο Κινέζος Πρόεδρος Σι Τζινπίνγκ και ο Τούρκος Πρόεδρος Ερντογάν εμφανίζονται πιο κοντά στο ρεαλιστικό θεώρημα ότι «η δύναμη παράγει δίκαιο» στις διεθνείς σχέσεις σε αντίθεση με την άποψη που βασίζεται σε πιο δημοκρατικούς και νομικούς κανόνες. Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι η επίθεση του Πούτιν στην Ουκρανία αποτελεί και επίθεση στη φιλελεύθερη δημοκρατική άποψη του κόσμου.

Είναι νεκρό το Διεθνές Δίκαιο;

Ο Πρόεδρος Πούτιν, στην ομιλία του στις 23 Φεβρουαρίου 2022, και σε προσπάθεια να δικαιολογήσει τις πράξεις του κατήγγειλε ότι στο παρελθόν υπήρξαν Δυτικές παραβιάσεις του διεθνούς δικαίου στο Κοσσυφοπέδιο, το Ιράκ και τη Λιβύη. Φυσικά, αυτό δεν μπορεί να νομιμοποίηση την εισβολής της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία σήμερα. Ωστόσο, υπάρχει ένα στοιχείο αλήθειας ότι η απαγόρευση της χρήσης βίας και ο σεβασμός της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας έχει υπονομευθεί σε κάποιες περιπτώσεις από τη Δύση στο παρελθόν. Ωστόσο αυτό δεν καθιστά και δεν πρέπει να καθιστά το διεθνές δίκαιο νεκρό ή άσχετο. Το να το κρίνουμε έτσι είναι λάθος και υπεραπλούστευση.

Το διεθνές δίκαιο είναι αυτό που όλοι επικαλούνται και που διαμορφώνει τη συζήτηση σήμερα. Ενώ ο Πρόεδρος Πούτιν παραβιάζει κατάφωρα τον Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ, εξακολουθεί να προσπαθεί να υπερασπιστεί τη συμπεριφορά του κάνοντας έκκληση σε εξαιρέσεις ή δικαιολογίες που περιλαμβάνονται στον ίδιο τον Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ. Ωστόσο ακόμα πιο σημαντικό είναι ότι, ενώ το διεθνές δίκαιο δεν ήταν σε θέση να εμποδίσει τη Ρωσία να διεξαγάγει πόλεμο εναντίον της Ουκρανίας, υπάρχει νόμος και είναι η παραβίαση αυτού του διεθνούς δικαίου που έχει οδηγήσει σε παγκόσμιες κυρώσεις, διαμαρτυρίες, διαφωνίες και απονομιμοποίηση του Πούτιν και της ρωσικής πολιτικής.

Η απόφαση του Ρώσου Πρόεδρου Πούτιν να εισβάλει στην Ουκρανία σηματοδοτεί το τέλος της μεταψυχροπολεμικής εποχής. Το τι θα ακολουθήσει παραμένει άγνωστο. Ωστόσο, οι αξίες της δημοκρατίας, της ελευθερίας, της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας και του κράτους δικαίου δεν πρέπει ποτέ να εγκαταλειφθούν. Οι δημοκρατίες δεν θα πρέπει να κατευνάσουν αλλά τουναντίον πρέπει ενωμένες να καταπολεμούν την επιθετικότητα και την παραβίαση του διεθνούς δικαίου όπου αυτό διαπράττεται. Βέβαια, οι δημοκρατίες θα πρέπει επίσης να διασφαλίζουν ότι και αυτές οι ίδιες τηρούν αυτές τις αξίες και ότι και οι ίδιες πάντα σέβονται το διεθνές δίκαιο. Τέλος, οι πολίτες των δημοκρατικών κρατών δεν πρέπει ποτέ να θεωρούν δεδομένη τη σημασία του κράτους δικαίου, της δημοκρατίας, του φιλελευθερισμού και των δημοκρατικών θεσμών και θα πρέπει να κατανοήσουν πόσο εύκολα όλα αυτά μπορούν να εξαφανιστούν όταν αυταρχικοί δημαγωγοί αναλαμβάνουν την εξουσία.

Πρέπει να αντιταχθούμε στις πολεμικές ενέργειες του Πρόεδρου Πούτιν.  Όχι μόνο επειδή πρέπει να στηρίξουμε τον ουκρανικό λαό απέναντι στην βία και στην επιθετικότητα, αλλά και επειδή πρέπει να υπερασπιστούμε την ύψιστη αρχή ότι οι σχέσεις μεταξύ κρατών πρέπει πάντα να διαμορφώνονται από το νόμο και τις νομικές αρχές και όχι με τον αυταρχισμό και την επιβολή βίας.

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής
Δικηγόρος & Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας (Διεθνείς Σχέσεις)

Sunday 27 February 2022

International Law and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia constitutes a breach of international law and the UN Charter. It flagrantly violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which declares that a state shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The UN Charter contains two exceptions to the above prohibition. The first permits the UN Security Council to use force on behalf of the UN to maintain peace and security. However, a unanimous resolution by the Security Council member states is required prior to such use of force. The second, Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes a state’s inherent right of self-defence and collective self-defence against an armed attack.

President Putin in his speech dated 23 February 2022 sought to validate his actions under international law by referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter. He argued that Russia’s invasion was an act of self-defence and collective self-defence protecting both Russia and the separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk from an armed attack by Ukraine and NATO. However, Putin’s claims lack legal merit.

Firstly, Ukraine has not attacked Russia, nor has it threatened to attack Russia. Secondly, whilst the doctrine of collective self-defence permits one state to defend another state that is being attacked the separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk are not states but Ukrainian sovereign territory and Article 51 does not apply to non-states. In fact, these enclaves were only a few days ago recognized as states by Russia. Thirdly, Russia’s claims lack in factual basis as Ukraine has not attacked these enclaves, but rather Russian armed militia have sought to enforce secession causing an armed conflict there. Finally, even if Russia could muster some legal justification, this does not excuse a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the unfolding humanitarian destruction. Its use of force is disproportionate and not limited to what is needed to prevent any alleged infringement.

International Law and Politics

The relationship between law and politics has forever been a troubling affair. The extent to which national security should be influenced by international law or issues of “morality” has been the issue of serious debate amongst scholars and foreign policy officials alike. For decades the West and its global allies have adopted a more liberal international view of international relations. They have established international rules and institutions between states aiming at long term co-operation and effective dispute resolution. It is the “institutionalized cooperation between countries on the basis of established rules and mutual respect” that proponents of liberal internationalism propagate.  They project values of “order, liberty, justice, and toleration in international relations”. Moreover, liberal internationalists maintain that the adoption of democratic principles by states is the key to securing peace since democracies are perceived as rarely going to war against each other.

On the contrary, realist proponents of international relations believe in the anarchical nature of the world. They question the extent to which international law has any relevance in the formulation of foreign policy and national security agendas. Indeed, realists maintain that states should not always comply with their legal obligations especially when to do so threatens vital national interests. Traces of this debate can be found in antiquity in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue and in the Athenians pronouncement that “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”. 

Leaders like Russian President Putin, Former US President Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Turkish President Erdogan seem more comfortable in a “might is right” view of international relations as opposed to a more democratic and legal rules based view. Indeed, Putin’s attack on Ukraine ultimately is also an attack on the liberal democratic view of the world. And as such must be vehemently opposed.

Is International Law dead?

President Putin, in his speech dated 23 February 2022, alleged previous Western violations of international law in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. Of course, these have no bearing to the illegality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine today. Nonetheless, there is an element of truth that the prohibition of the use of force and respect of territorial integrity has been undermined by the West in the past.

However, whilst Russia today and some Western states in the past have circumvented international law in favour of perceived national security interests or humanitarian grounds this does not and should not render international law dead or irrelevant. To deem so will be both erroneous and an oversimplification. It is international law that shapes the debate and provides a most powerful language through which states like Russia try to justify their actions. Whilst Putin is flagrantly breaching the UN Charter, he still tries to defend his conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the UN Charter itself. Most importantly however, whilst international law was not able to prevent Russia to wage war against Ukraine there is law and it is the breach of such international law that has resulted in global sanctions, protests, dissent and the delegitimating of Russian power.

The decision by Putin to invade Ukraine signals the end of the post-Cold War era. What will follow remains unknown. However, our values of democracy, freedom, territorial integrity, and the rule of law should never be abandoned. Democracies should always ensure that their global behaviour also adheres to these values. Democracies should not appease; they need to bound together and fight aggression. Citizens of democracies should never take for granted the importance of our values based system and how easy these can vanish when authoritarian demagogues take power. 

It is imperative that we oppose Putin’s actions not only because we must support the Ukrainian people in the face of aggression but also because it is a breach of international law and because relationships and problems between states should always be shaped and resolved by adherence to legal principles. 

By Vasilis (Bill) Giavris
Lawyer & Political Scientist

Tuesday 2 March 2021

Ο Μεσαιωνικός Πύργος στο Λουκά, Αρκαδίας.

Τα απομεινάρια ενός Μεσαιωνικού πύργου δεσπόζουν στο χωριό Λουκά, Αρκαδίας. Παρά την εμφανή εγκατάλειψη και το ανελέητο πέρασμα του χρόνου σήμερα σώζεται η νότια πλευρά και η νοτιοδυτική γωνία του, σε ύψος περίπου 10 μέτρων στην περιοχή "Βίδι". Στον δεύτερο όροφο σώζεται άνοιγμα παραθύρου ενώ στη βάση του υπάρχει τοξοθυρίδα.

Η αρχαιολόγος Ευαγγελία Ελευθερίου, στην εργασία της «Βυζαντινές Αρχαιότητες στο Λουκά Αρκαδίας - Πρώτες Παρατηρήσεις, 2007», αναφέρει ότι ο πύργος μάλλον χρονολογείται στην Υστεροβυζαντινή περίοδο δηλαδή περίπου το 12ο και 13ο αιώνα μ.Χ. Τριγύρω από τον πύργο, αλλά και σε πολλά άλλα σημεία, υπάρχουν διάσπαρτα ερείπια και κεραμικά ευρήματα που μαρτυρούν την ύπαρξη παλαιού οικισμού. Ο πύργος θα μπορούσε να άνηκε και σε ισχυρό τοπικό άρχοντα.

Στο Μεσαίωνα ο οικισμός του Λουκά αποτελούσε σπουδαίο οδικό κόμβο. Ο πύργος έλεγχε την πεδιάδα του Λουκά αλλά και τα σπουδαία περάσματα μεταξύ της κάστροπολιτείας του Μουχλίου και το κάστρο στα Τσιπιανά - με τα οποία και είχε οδική σύνδεση. Το Μουχλί, το οποίο βρίσκεται ανάμεσα στους σημερινούς οικισμούς του Αχλαδόκαμπου και των Αγιωργίτικων κτίστηκε περίπου την ίδια περίοδο με τον πύργο στο Λουκά και το 14ο αιώνα απετέλεσε την σημαντικότερη πόλη της Πελοποννήσου, μετά από το Μυστρά και τη Μονεμβασιά. Ο πλυθυσμός του πιθανολογείται ότι έφτανε τις 20,000 κατοίκους.

Σύμφωνα με την κ. Ελευθερίου δεν μπορεί κανείς να προσδιορίσει με σιγουριά εάν ο πύργος στο Λουκά κτίστηκε από Βυζαντινούς ή από Ενετούς/Βενετούς. Όμως, με κάθε επιφυλακτικότητα, η προσωπική άποψη του γράφοντος είναι ότι υπάρχουν αρκετά στοιχεία που συνηγορούν ότι ο πύργος μάλλον κτίστηκε από τους Ενετούς ή ότι τουλάχιστον για μια περίοδο, ο πύργος και ο γύρο οικισμός ήταν κάτω από ενετική κυριότητα. Συγκεκριμένα:

  • Οι παλιότεροι κάτοικοι του χωριού αναφέρουν τον πύργο ως Ενετικό.
  • Πολύ κοντά στον πύργο και κοντά στο νεώτερο έξωκλήσι του Προφήτη Ηλία βρίσκεται το εικονοστάσι του Αγίου Μάρκου το οποίο σύμφωνα με τους κατοίκους αποτελεί υπενθύμιση προγενέστερου μικρού ναού του Αγίου Μάρκου (δίπλα απο το εικονοστάσι υπάρχουν διάσπαρτα ερείπια και κεραμεικά ευρήματα). Ο ‘Άγιος Μάρκος είναι ο πολιούχος της Βενετίας.
  • Κάτοικοι έχουν πιο παλιά αναφέρει την εύρεση χάλκινου νομίσματος με απεικόνιση του Αγίου Μαρκου (Ελευθερίου, 2007),
  • Η ετυμολογία της λέξης «Βίδι», δηλαδή της περιοχής στην οποία είναι κτισμένος ο πύργος, είναι ενδεχομένως παραφθορά της λατινικής λέξεις «vide» η «vidi» που σημαίνει παρατηρώ/βλέπω (βλέπε την περίφημη φράση του Ιούλιου Καίσαρα «Veni, Vidi, Vici» δηλαδή « Ήρθα, είδα, νίκησα»).
Το εικονοστάσι του
Αγίου Μάρκου.
Ο πύργος αποτελεί μέρος της ιστορικής και πολιτιστικής ταυτότητας του τόπου. Συνδέει το σήμερα με τη υστεροβυζαντινή περίοδο και μαζί με τα πολλά άλλα μνημεία και ευρήματα αποτελούν άλλη μια μαρτυρία ότι ο οικισμός Λουκά κατοικείται αδιαλείπτως από τη νεολιθική εποχή (6000-3000 π.Χ.) μέχρι σήμερα*. 

Είναι κρίμα ο πύργος να αφήνεται στην τύχη του και να καταρρεύσει ολοσχερώς. Είναι σίγουρο ότι εάν σύντομα δεν ενδιαφερθεί η πολιτεία, οι τοπικοί φορείς, οι πολιτιστικοί συλλόγοι αλλά και οι ίδιοι οι κάτοικοι και οι έλκοντες την καταγωγή από το χωριό, αυτό θα γίνει. Μαζί του θα καταρρεύσει και ένα μέρος της πολιτισμικής μας κληρονομιάς.


Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής
Δικηγόρος & Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας

* Ο οικισμός Λουκά στην αρχαιότητα είναι ένα αρθρο το οποίο πολύ σύντομα ο γραφών θα δημοσιέυσει.

Monday 25 January 2021

Revisiting Albert Camus’s “The Plague” during the time of Coronavirus: If we cannot be ‘saints’, we can at least try to be healers.

By Vasilis Giavris

A fictional outbreak of Bourbonic plague that spreads across the Algerian town of Oran (at the time under French occupation), is the subject matter of Albert Camus’s novel 'The Plague'. Published in 1947, the novel has acquired a newfound relevance in this time of Coronavirus. It explores the behaviours and actions of individuals, government, religion, and science, as they try to deal with the epidemic and ensuing emergency lockdown. The novel is rich in symbolism and both the meaning of life and coming to terms with the absurd are themes explored by Camus.

No, Camus did not predict that that a plague will affect humanity in 2020. However, he did very well understand that plagues are a natural occurrence that periodically effect humanity and will continue to do so. He warned that:
 “Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world, yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky. There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.” 
Indeed, despite the current proliferation of Covid-19, past disease outbreaks are still ignored by many people who unwisely believe them to be a ‘historical footnote’ which ‘will not happen to us’. A similar attitude is adopted by the people of Oran, at no surprise to Camus. He describes the town as filled with bored people who subordinate all aspects of life to business – even love making is relegated to a weekend chore. In a spirit of pointless commercialism, the narrator declares that:
“Our citizens work hard, but solely with the object of getting rich. Their chief interest is in commerce, and their chief aim in life is, as they call it, 'doing business'".
He further declares that:

“Treeless, glamourless, soulless the town of Oran ends by seeming restful, and after a while, you go complacently to sleep there”.

To Camus, this behaviour is absurd – it is a divorce between man and his life. Such a circumscribed society that refuses to live, inevitably, cannot make sense of death. As such, it remains indifferent to the imminent danger and is unable to deal with its repercussions when it arrives. After all, whilst not necessarily immoral, it was dead long before the plague arrived.

The novels main characters come together to navigate through complex ethical theorem. The novel’s narrator and protagonist, Bernard Rieux, is a doctor. He is a first-hand witness to the events that take place in the city. He first observes a sudden increase in rats entering the city, a growing number of which begin to die. The rats carry with them a terrible disease that ultimately, spreads indiscriminately through-out the population, aided by the town’s hypocrisy and apathy.

Rieux is a humanist who assumes a rational outlook of what transpires. He is forced to confront the denial and indifference of governmental authorities and other colleagues. He views the plague as nothing more than a natural occurrence. He is trying his best to alleviate the devastation by attending to the ill despite the risk of contracting the virus himself. Rieux is an 'absurd' hero who, noting the ever-mounting death and infection rate, is conscious of the absurdity of life. It is this consciousness and realisation of the absurd that provides him with the necessary power and strength to continue attending to the ill.

Father Paneloux, a popular Jesuit priest, initially declares the plague as God's punishment for Oran's sins. He later views the plague as an unexplained gift from God. He preaches to his congregation that they must just accept God’s gift for failing to do so will mean that they are denying God. For Paneloux, the plague is as a supreme test of faith. Eventually, he himself falls ill and is faced with the dilemma - to refuse medical help and accept God’s will or seek treatment. Ultimately, Paneloux refuses medical treatment and dies even though, ironically, it appears that his illness was not related to the Plague.

Another pivotal character in the novel is the journalist Raymond Rambert. He is a self-proclaimed stranger to the town, who constantly tries to escape Oran to meet up with his wife in Paris but is unable to do so. He offers bribes to secure escape, but these too fail. He is disillusioned about his personal predicament and obsessed with his personal suffering. However, the Plague irreparably changes Rambert. He ultimately joins the narrator in helping the sick, refusing to leave the city even when an opportunity to do so finally arises. Announcing his change of heart, he explaines: “This business is everybody’s business.”. In doing so, Rambert has rationalised that he must deny personal happiness and make a moral commitment to a cause higher than himself - that to mankind.

The novel remains a contemporary commentary as it anticipates current global developments. More than seven decades after its publication, like the folks of Oran, we too live in an inchoate (COVID-19) world - an estranged hyper-materialist and self-absorbed world. A world intertwined between the fixation of doing business, reckless populist rhetoric, ludicrous conspiracy theories, dogma, and science. We too are susceptible to false information and fake news - now amplified by social media - as the people of Oran. In fact, we are living through the ramifications of these today. 

However, underlying the actions of the protagonists in this novel, is the realisation that:
 “on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims, and it’s up to us, so far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences.”. 
As such, doing no harm either through our actions or through our voice is of paramount importance. If we cannot be saints, we can at least strive to be healers.

In his essay ‘Summer in Algiers’, Camus writes:
"...If there is a sin against life, it lies perhaps less in despairing of it than in hoping for another life, and evading the implacable grandeur of the one we have".
Perhaps it is time for us to rethink our place in this world and defeat the bonds of our existence. Maybe, we can find a new way forward. By becoming less self-absorbed and more accepting of the fragility of life we can finally appreciate its splendour, allowing the emergence of a better and more humane post Covid-19 world. 

Vasilis Giavris
Lawyer & Political Scientist


Saturday 11 July 2020

Η μετατροπή της Αγίας Σοφίας σε τζαμί θέτει την Τουρκία εκτός του δυτικού κόσμου.

Η απόφαση του Τούρκου Προέδρου Ερντογάν να μετατρέψει την εκκλησία της Αγίας Σοφίας, ένα μνημείο παγκόσμιας κληρονομιάς της UNESCO, σε τζαμί είναι θλιβερή αλλά δεν προκαλεί έκπληξη. Αν και η απόφαση αυτή έχει μεγάλη ιστορική και θρησκευτική σημασία για τον Ελληνισμό και ολόκληρο τον χριστιανικό κόσμο η κύρια σημασία της έγκειται στη γεωπολιτική. Σηματοδοτεί τον εξισλαμισμό της Τουρκίας, της πολιτικής της και της κοινωνίας της. Είναι μια γεωπολιτική αξονική μετατόπιση που επιλέγει να τοποθετήσει την Τουρκία έξω από τη σφαίρα του δυτικού κόσμου και βαθύτερα σε μια νεο-οθωμανική σφαίρα επιρροής στη Μέση Ανατολή και την Ασία. 

Η απόφαση ακυρώνει αυτή που είχε λάβει τη δεκαετία του 1930 ο ιδρυτής του σύγχρονου τουρκικού κράτους, ο Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ. Σε μια προσπάθεια προώθησης μιας κοσμικής, σύγχρονης Τουρκίας, ο Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ είχε ορίσει την Αγία Σοφία ως μουσείο και όχι τζαμί σε αναγνώριση των χιλίων πεντακοσίων χρόνων χριστιανικής ιστορίας της αλλά και της σημασίας της για τον Χριστιανικό Ορθόδοξο κόσμο. 

Εδώ και πολλά χρόνια ο Ερντογάν προσπαθεί να αναβιώσει μια νεοοθωμανική, επεκτατική Τουρκική εξωτερική πολιτική. Δεν πρέπει να παραβλέπουμε την αυξανόμενη επιρροή και συμμετοχή της Τουρκίας στα Βαλκάνια (βλέπε επενδύσεις της Τουρκικής Υπηρεσίας Διεθνούς Συνεργασίας και Ανάπτυξης (TIKA) στην Αλβανία, τη Βόρεια Μακεδονία και τη Βοσνία), στην περιοχή του Καυκάσου, στη Συρία, την Αίγυπτο και πιο πρόσφατα τη Λιβύη. Ο Ερντογάν υποστηρίξει και προωθεί σκληρές ισλαμιστικές ομάδες σε όλα αυτά τα κράτη. 

Αδιαμφισβήτητα η σημερινή ανακοίνωση πονάει και θλίβει τον ελληνικό λαό. Όμως περισσότερο από ποτέ είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη η Ελλάδα να συνεχίσει να επιδεικνύει ορθολογισμό, θέληση και αποφασιστικότητα. Ως η κορυφαία βαλκανική πολιτικοοικονομική δύναμη πρέπει να συνεχίσει να συνεργάζεται με όλες τις βαλκανικές χώρες μέσω της προώθησης μιας ενοποιητικής διαδικασίας και πολιτικής με βασικό άξονα την ένταξη στην ΕΕ των Δυτικών Βαλκανίων. Ως κράτος μέλος της Ευρωζώνης και προμαχώνας του δυτικού πολιτισμού πρέπει να συνεχίσει να εκθέτει τις ενέργειες της Τουρκίας. Πρέπει να πείσει την Ευρώπη και τον δυτικό κόσμο ότι μια μη κοσμική Τουρκία που αγνοεί τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και έχει επεκτατικές βλέψεις δεν είναι μόνο ένας παγκόσμιος παρίας, αλλά και μια σοβαρή παγκόσμια απειλή για τη σταθερότητα και την ειρήνη - ένα πρόβλημα που απαιτεί συντονισμένη πολυεθνική απάντηση. 

Πριν από πολλές δεκαετίες, ο μεγάλος Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος κατάφερε να πείσει τη Δύση για αυτό προς όφελος του Ελληνισμού. Είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη να επαναληφθεί αυτό ξανά σήμερα.

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής
(Δικηγόρος - Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας)

Erdogan's decision to convert Hagia Sophia into a Mosque places Turkey outside the realm of the Western world.

The decision by Turkish President Erdogan to convert the church of Hagia Sophia, a UNESCO world heritage site, to a mosque is regrettable but ultimately unsurprising. Whilst this decision carries great historical and religious significance to the Christian world its foremost significance lays in geopolitics. It signals the islamisation of Turkey, its politics, and its society. It is an axis shift that chooses to place Turkey outside the realm the Western world and deeper within its vision of a neo-ottoman sphere of influence in the Middle east and Asia. 

The decision annuls the one previously made by the founder of the modern Turkish state, Kemal Ataturk, in the 1930’s. In an attempt to promote a secular, modern world Turkey, Kemal Ataturk decreed that Hagia Sophia would become a museum and not a mosque in recognition of its 1500 years Christian history and its significance to the Christian Orthodox world. 

For many years Erdogan has attempted to revive a neo-ottoman view of the world. Today more than ever he is engaging in division, exclusion and expansionist politics. One cannot overlook the growing influence and involvement of Turkey in the Balkans (see Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) investments in Albania, North Macedonia and Bosnia), in the Caucasus region, in Syria, Egypt and most recently Libya. Erdogan has openly supported and promoted hard islamist groups in all these states. 

Whilst today's announcement pains the Greek people it is imperative that Greece continue to show rationality, will and determination. As the leading Balkan politico-economic power it must continue to engage with all Balkan countries through promotion of unifying politics and EU membership for all the Western Balkan nations. As a Eurozone member state and a bastion of Western civilization it must continue to expose the actions of Turkey. It must convince the Western world that a non-secular Turkey that disregards human rights and has expansionist policies is not only a global pariah but also a serious global threat to stability and peace - a problem that requires a coordinated multinational response. 

Many decades ago, the great Eleftherios Venizelos was able to convince the West of this to the benefit of Hellenism. It is imperative that this be repeated today.

Vasilis Giavris
Lawyer & Political Scientist

Saturday 15 February 2020

Eleftherios Venizelos - The Maker of Modern Greece

By Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer and Political Scientist

Eleftherios Venizelos is a towering figure in the modern Greek political pantheon. Whilst not immune from errors, the great Cretan is rightly considered by most Greek and international leaders, diplomats and historians as the greatest Greek politician since the inception of the modern Greek state in 1829. He lived in the most turbulent times and was associated with some of the most significant events in Greek and European history.

Born in 1864 in Ottoman ruled Crete, Venizelos took part in the Cretan revolution and at a very young age became its leader demanding union with Greece. Once arriving in Athens Venizelos created the Liberal Party which was a centrist, progressive, liberal, republican movement. He was first elected Prime Minister of Greece in 1910. In total, he was elected Prime Minister seven times. Under his leadership and insistence Greece participated in two Balkan wars and the First World War. Under his leadership in all three wars Greece was victorious.

Venizelos is credited with being “the maker of modern Greece” and its liberal, western European orientation. It is Venizelos that is responsible for the liberation of Thessaloniki and Macedonia, of Ioannina and Southern Ipeiros, of Thrace, Crete, the Eastern Aegean islands and the Dodecanese. It is through his diplomatic acumen that, within a ten-year period, Greece was able to double its land and population size. 

International Acclaim 

Venizelos was a supreme diplomat, a strategist and a humanist. He was a grand European leader who was at his best when courting global leaders mesmerized by his articulations. Margaret MacMillan in her book, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, states that Venizelos held European dinner parties “..spellbound with stories of life as a guerrilla in the Cretan mountains, of how he had taught himself English by reading The Times with a rifle resting on his knees. And always the conversation included references to the glorious past and great future of Greece.” 

David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom considered Venizelos ..“the greatest Greek since Pericles” and claimed that disaster always followed when the Greek people refused to follow him. Unites States President Woodrow Wilson wrote “… there is no other statesman in Europe more capable for leadership during these difficult times for the political future of the world …” then Venizelos. 

UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote that Venizelos's “personal skills, his prestige and the invaluable services he offered to the allies have given him a place which is almost equal to that of the leaders of the major victorious countries; with him, his country has ascended breathtaking heights and glanced at bedazzling horizons”. Others, like German historian Emil Loudvich viewed Venizelos comparable to Bismarck and Metternich, whilst German Ambassador Baron Von Wangenheim held the view that Venizelos was the greatest amongst all European leaders.Finally, famed Danish philosopher and scholar James Brandes thought "Venizelos was too big for a small state like Greece." 

First Balkan War – Liberation of Macedonia and Ipeiros 

In 1912 Serbia and Bulgaria signed an alliance agreement against the Ottoman Empire which still occupied large territories in the Balkan peninsula. Both countries agreed to attack the Turks and divide amongst them all newly acquired land, including Macedonia. Venizelos immediately took the view that Serb-Bulgarian success against the Turks will forever signal the end of Greece’s ability to liberate Macedonia and Thrace and the large Greek populations that lived therein. 

The view held by Venizelos was opposed by the opposition parties and influential figures like Ion Dragoumis. They were horrified with the idea that Greece would be aligned with Slavs, given the recent Macedonian struggle, and contended that Greece must align itself with the Turks in the war against the Slavic nations. But Venizelos was a supreme diplomat who was excellent in understanding international relations and regional power plays. He insisted that it was in Greece’s best interest to enter this war on the side of the Bulgarians and the Serbs. 

Venizelos was able to convince the Bulgarians to sign a defensive alliance which allowed Greece to enter the war on the pretext that each country was entitled to territories it liberated from the Ottoman Empire. The Bulgarians, who at the time considered themselves a regional military superpower, believed that they would defeat the Turks and acquire Macedonia and Thrace. They perceived the Greek army to be weak and unable to acquire much territory especially since Greece had been recently defeated by the Turks in 1897. 

Venizelos inspecting the Macedonian war front
However, to their surprise the Greek army was able to defeat the Turks. As such, on 26 October 1913 Thessaloniki was liberated by the Greek armed forces - only a few minutes prior to the arrival Bulgarian army. By the end of the First Balkan War, as a result of Venizelos’s foresight, Greece was able to liberate the biggest part of Macedonia, Ipeiros, the whole of Thessaly, Crete and the Eastern Aegean islands including Mytilene, Xios, Samos, Limnos, Thasos, Samothrace and Psara. 

Second Balkan War - 16 June 1913 

The end of the First Balkan War found Bulgaria aggrieved with its inability the obtain the territories it desired in the Balkans – Thessaloniki and the largest part of Macedonia. In the summer of 1913 Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece sparking the Second Balkan War which lasted a little over one month. Under the leadership of Venizelos, Greece defeated the Bulgars and liberated the cities of Serres and Kavala. 


First World War – July 1914 to November 1918.

The dawn of World War 1 saw Greece facing imminent external threats from Bulgaria, Turkey and Italy whilst also having to deal with Austro-Hungarian imperialist interests in the region. Venizelos was no longer the Prime Minister, having been forced to resign, and Greece was ruled by King Constantine and his appointed government. The King was a German sympathizer married to the sister of German Emperor [Kaizer] Wilhelm II. He advocated Greek neutrality at all expenses which served the interest of the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungaria, Turkey and Bulgaria) whilst Venizelos and his supporters maintained that Greece must as early as possible enter the war on the side of the triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia). Venizelos desire to support the Entente was based mainly on four dictums: 

  • He was a strong believer in the naval abilities of Britain and France holding the view that they will ultimately be victorious in WW1. As famously quoted by Winston Churchill in his 1942 speech in London “The late Mr. Venizelos observed that in all her wars England—he should have said Britain, of course—always wins one battle—the last”. 
  • He believed that the survival and growth of Greece was inextricably linked with it being allied with the "sea-keeping powers". He maintained that if Greece had become Germany's ally, it would have seen the coastal cities, its shipping and its capital destroyed. 
  • That Greece should take advantage of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire siding with Germany since this will result in Great Britain and France supporting Greece’s claims in Macedonia, Ipeiros and Minor Asia allowing for the liberation of millions of Greeks and annexation of historical Greek territories.
  • He was a centrist liberal democrat that opposed dictatorial regimes and was an ardent believer that the place of Greece was on the side of the Western parliamentary democracies. Venizelos was the architect of Greece’s accession to the Western world stating, “Greece must take part in the struggle of free Europe against a barbaric, totalitarian militarism that will cause the destruction of both Greece and the whole of Europe”. 
It should be noted that on October 1915 Britain offered Cyprus to Greece on the condition that Greece entered the war against Germany. Venizelos was not in government and King Constantine refused the offer which later lapsed and was never repeated. The ramifications of such refusal are still witnessed today. 

Bulgarian invasion and Greek army surrender 

In October 1915 Bulgaria entered WW1 on the side of Germany following in the footsteps of the Ottoman Empire which entered the war on the side of Germany in October 1915. In the spring of 1916 Bulgaria advanced and recaptured certain parts of Greek held Macedonia causing many atrocities to the Greek inhabitants. In order to remain “neutral” and maintain Germany happy the Greek royalist government had ordered the Greek army to retreat and provide no resistance to any foreign army. In 26 May 1916, without offering any resistance, the Rupel fortress was surrendered by Ioannis Metaxas and King Constantine to the Bulgarians.                                                                                                                                             
Greek IV Corps marching in Gorlitz
Similarly, in one of the darkest pages of Greek military history approximately 464 officers and 6373 soldiers of the Greek Army IV Corps stationed in Kavala were ordered by King Constantine to avoid confrontation with the Bulgarian army. The army fled and on their request, were transported to the German city of Gorlitz where they remained until WW1 ended. Kavala was occupied by Bulgarian forces for approximately two years. It has been reported that during this two-year period 42,000 Greeks were taken to prison camps in Bulgaria of which 12,000 died. 

National Schism and the creation of two Greek governments 

The surrender of Macedonian territory to Bulgarians was the tipping point for Venizelos and his supporters. Venizelos was worried that Greek neutrality could result in Bulgaria being enticed to switch sides and align itself with Britain in exchange of her being allowed to retain the biggest part of Macedonia. With the assistance of Great Britain and France, Venizelos launched a coup which resulted in Greece for a period having two governments: the "official" royal government at Athens, which maintained Greek neutrality, and the "revolutionary" Venizelist "Provisional Government of National Defence" at Thessaloniki which declared war on Germany and the Central Powers. Not long after the initial coup Venizelos, dethroned King Constantine and united Greece. 

Triumph and Paris Peace Conference 

Greek military units in the World War I
Victory Parade  in Arc de Triomphe, Paris. July 1919
The participation of Greece in the war brought a momentous shift of power. Greece’s military victories against the Bulgarians and the subsequent collapse of the Balkan front brought euphoria to the British and French governments and public. Venizelos was deemed a hero and a genius that once again was vindicated. Not long after the war ended - Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire had been defeated and Greece found itself on the side of the victors. 

The Paris Peace Conference (also referred to as the Versailles Peace Conference) held between 1919 and 1920, convened to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers. Venizelos proposed that Greece acquired Eastern Thrace, Asia Minor (Smyrni and surrounding areas), Northern Epirus, Imvros, Tenedos and the Dodecanese islands. He advocated the internationalization of Constantinople away from Turkish mandate. 

The Paris Peace Conference was an apotheosis for Venizelos. The major powers had not forgotten that it was he who had proposed the participation of Greece in the war at its most crucial moment in August 1914, when the Germans were outside Paris. American foreign correspondent H.A. Gibbons who attended the conference remarked, “The Greek Premier secured a place in the conference, not only in the heart of the public, but also among his counterparts, that was disproportional to his country’s size and importance”. The London Times wrote, “it [the Conference] was the occasion of his personal triumph”. 

Minor Asia – Treaty of Sèvres

The Paris Peace Conference resulted in the victorious nations of WW1 and the Ottoman Empire executing the Treaty of Sèvres on 28 July 1920. This Treaty provided that: 
  • Smyrna, Aivali and surrounding areas would be under Greek military control and administration; a local parliament would be created; a referendum was to be held after five years to vote on whether the majority of Smyrna's citizens wished to join Greece or remain in the Ottoman Empire; and the referendum would be overseen by the League of Nations; and
  • Greece was provided with Eastern Thrace (just outside Constantinople), the islands of Imvros and Tenedos and the islands of the Sea of Marmara; and 
  • Constantinople and the surrounding seas whilst technically remaining under Ottoman sovereignty were internationalised and brought under the control of an international commission. Article 36 of the Treaty provided that if Turkey breached any terms of the Treaty then the parties to the Treaty (including Greece) expressly reserved the right to modify the provisions relating to Constantinople and the surrounding seas – potentially leading to future Greek annexation of the area. 
Finally, Greece reached a separate agreement with Italy (the “Venizelos–Tittoni agreement”) that ceded the Dodecanese islands to Greece. However, after much protest by Italy Greece was not permitted to annex Northern Ipeiros. 

1920 Electoral Defeat 

When Venizelos first came to power the borders of Greece
were those depicted in the various forms of blue (up to Thessaly).
Upon his electoral defeat in 1920 Venizelos had increased the Greek
borders to those as shown in all other colours.  
After having achieved so many military victories against the Turks and Bulgaria, executing the Sèvres Agreement and nearly tripling the size of the Greek State Venizelos called for an election on November 1, 1920. The result was a surprising defeat. Venizelos in utter disappointment fled to Paris in self-exile. King Constantine returned to the throne and his supporters to government. The result of these elections was catastrophic for Greece. The London Times wrote on November 17, 1920 that “the voters […] expelled from power the great politician and patriot who had raised them from the state of weakness and disintegration in which he had found them almost to the position of a Great Power. We are unable to recall a more characteristic example of a people’s ingratitude or folly than this one since the times of Aristides”. 

Minor Asia Catastrophe 

Unfortunately for Greece the defeat of Venizelos and the return of the Germanophile King and his affiliated government caused a predictable revision of policy by Britain, France and Italy. Constantine was deemed a German agent. Winston Churchill expressing British sentiment wrote: “There was a pro-Allied Greece of Venizelos and a pro-German one of Constantine. All the faith of the allies began and ended with the Greece of Venizelos; all the discontent was concentrated on the Greece of Constantine”. The Times newspaper in London wrote that the Allies “did not sanction the creation of a Greater Greece for a benefit of a brother-in-law or a nephew of the ex-Keiser.” The newspaper ominously noted: “If the Greeks ratify the course they have chosen at the polls, they must take the consequence on their own shoulders.” 

The Minor Asia catastrophe
In the meantime, in Turkey, Kemal Ataturk ascended to power abolishing the Ottoman Empire in favour of a secular, liberal democratic and westernised Turkey. He quickly modernized and reorganised the Turkish army and was attaining international support. In Greece, although the new royalist government - led by Prime Minister Dimitrios Gounaris - had campaigned on a pacifist platform stating they will end all wars they did the exact opposite. Instead of retaining the Greek army on the outskirts of Smyrna they chose to march all the way to the outskirts of Ankara. Disorganised, far away from its supply lines and abandoned by its allies the Greek army was soundly defeated. This caused a catastrophe, with hundreds of thousands of Greek people dying and 1,500,000 Greek refugees from Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace forced to leave their ancestral homes and come to Greece. 

Lausanne Treaty – 24 July 1923 

These cataclysmic events caused a new revolutionary government to seize power in Greece. The new government court-martialed and executed six officials, including royalist Prime Minister Gounaris, whom it found guilty of treason and responsible for the Minor Asia catastrophe. The revolutionary government pleaded with Venizelos to immediately attend Lausanne and represent Greece at the negotiating table with Turkey. Venizelos complied but had the extreme difficult task of containing the Turkish delegation that, as victor, was pressing Greece to make great territorial concessions. Venizelos asked the revolutionary government to assemble a Greek battalion and send it to Thrace. Venizelos then proceeded to threaten Turkey to go back to war if a viable agreement could not be reached. 

On 24 July 1923 The Lausanne Treaty was entered. Greece was forced to abandon Minor Asia, Eastern Thrace and the islands of Imvros and Tenedos. However, Greece was able to maintain Western Thrace and the Aegean Sea islands which Turkey expressly abandoned. The treaty signalled the permanent borders between Greece and Turkey and established the foundations of a Greek-Turkish friendship. This was a major achievement by Venizelos especially when one has in mind that today, nearly 100 years after this treaty was entered into, Turkish President Erdogan stated “..They [threatened] us with Sèvres in 1920 and persuaded us to [accept] Lausanne in 1923. Some tried to deceive us by presenting Lausanne as victory. In Lausanne, we gave away the [now-Greek] islands that you could shout across to,..”. Erdogan further stated: “..We are still struggling about what the continental shelf will be, and what will be in the air and the land. The reason for this is those who sat at the table for that treaty. Those who sat there did not do [us] justice, and we are reaping those troubles right now...”. 

Venizelos and Kemal Ataturk 

After the Minor Asia catastrophe Venizelos advocated the need for peace with Turkey. Greece had to rebuild itself and cater for its population that had more than doubled over a 10-year period. The 1,5 million Greek refugees that entered Greece lived in impoverished conditions. Greece could not afford another war or Turkish territorial claims in the Aegean Sea islands and Thrace. In 1930, after having returned to government, he signed in Ankara a Greek-Turkish Treaty of Friendship. Moreover, he nominated Ataturk for a Nobel peace prize, which was never awarded. This nomination was used by Venizelos to try to cement Greek-Turkish rapprochement, consolidate peace and overcome old nationalisms. 

Death & Legacy 

Venizelos died in self-imposed exile in Paris, on 18 March 1936. Despite his many achievements, Greek politics at the first half of the 20th century where politics of extreme division and polarisation. The country was divided amongst royalist and republican forces. Half the Greek population adored him whilst the other half detested him. 

Assassination attempt 
against Venizelos in Paris 1920
Prior to his death he had survived numerous attempted assassinations against him. On 12 August 1920, just a few hours after having signed the Treaty of Sèvres, recognised by most  scholars as   the greatest treaty signed by a Greek politician, he was shot ten times by two royalist soldiers at the Gare de Lyon railway station in Paris. In Athens, on 6 June 1933 his car was riddled with bullets from machine guns causing the death of his driver and the injury of his wife. 

However, today in almost every Greek city there is a boulevard, a street or a plateia named after Venizelos. His statutes are in numerous places including the entrance of the Greek Parliament. When the new international airport in Athens opened its doors to the world in 2001 it adopted the name “Athens International Airport - Eleftherios Venizelos”. 

Eighty four years after his death Greece has produced some very important leaders but, arguably, no one was Venizelos. He turned problems into opportunities, mistakes into innovations and failures to successes. His modernising vision was long lasting. 

Today, Greece remains a country that is confronted with two doors. It has a front door on the Mediterranean Sea, where it has traditionally achieved greatness when open minded, liberal and realistic attitudes have dominated its politics and a back door that opens on the Balkan mountains, where Balkan attitudes, divisions, populism, gross lies  and problems have engrossed its politics. Eleftherios Venizelos always looked to the sea. 

Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist


Major Sources

1. "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" Margaret Macmillan; 
2. "Life of Venizelos", S.B Chester;
3."Eleuftherios Venizelos, British Public Opinion and the Climax of Anglo-Hellenism (1915-1920)" Slobodan G. Markovich; 
4. Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statemanship", Paschalis Kitromilides (ed.);
5. Eleftherios Venizelos - The Visionary of the Attainable", Thanos Veremis; 
6 "Eleftherios Venizelos" Nikolaos Papadakis;
7. Eleftherios Venizelos, The Formulation of His Political Thinking", Hellenic Parliament Foundation & National Research Foundation Eleftherios Venizelos;
8. "Venizelos in the Revolution and in Politics", Georgios Panagiotakis; 
9."Eleftherios Venizelos: The man, the leader" Nikolaos Papadakis; and
10. "The Great Greeks: Eleftherios Venizelos", Skai Vivlio.