25 Μαρτίου 1821: Η Ελληνική Επανάσταση

Η 25 Μαρτίου σηματοδοτεί την 195η επέτειο από την έναρξη της Ελληνικής Επανάστασης του 1821 ενάντια στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία. H επανάσταση, αν και πολυδιάστατη, ήταν πρωτίστως μια εθνική επανάσταση δεδομένου ότι επιδίωξε και εξασφάλισε την εθνική μας ανεξαρτησία και την ίδρυση του Ελληνικού κράτους. Δεν χρειάζεται ως λαός να υποκύψουμε σε μια μεταμοντέρνα κουλτούρα του απόλυτου νιχιλισμού που προσδοκά στην απόριψη της ιστορικής μας μνήμης και της συλλογικής μας ταυτότητας και όπου κάθε αναφορά στο έθνος αμφισβητείται και γίνεται καταδικαστέα.

Η 25η Μαρτίου αποτελεί μέρα μνήμης και περισυλλογής. Ο Ελληνισμός στην Κύπρο και στην Ελλάδα βρίσκεται σε δυσμενή κατάσταση - βρίσκεται στο σταυροδρόμι κοσμοϊστορικών αλλαγών. Σήμερα δεν χρειάζονται τυμπανοκρουσίες και μεγαλοστομίες. Τα λόγια είναι φτωχά. 'Ηρθε η ώρα να αναρωτηθούμε τι είμαστε και τι θέλουμε να είμαστε μέσα στο παγκόσμιο γίγνεσθαι. Ηρθε η ώρα να αναρωτηθούμε πώς, σε ένα κόσμο διαρκώς μεταβαλλόμενο θα φανούμε εμείς αντάξιοι των προσδοκιών μας και των ιστορικών μας καταβολών. 

Ο Ελληνισμός είναι ένας ζωντανός οργανισμός. Τό άυριο πρέπει να αποτελει τη συγχώνευση του αθροίσματος του παρελθόντος μας, της σημερινής μας πραγματικότητας και το όραμά μας για το μέλλον. Τώρα είναι η δύσκολη στιγμή της υπέρβασης - να στοχέυσουμε για καινούργιους ορίζοντες για καινούργιες αφετηρίες.

Η αντίληψη ότι ως λαός είμαστε ανήμποροι να αλλάξουμε αυτά που συμβαίνουν γύρω μας είναι λανθασμένη και επικύνδυνη γιατί μπορεί να γίνει αυτοεκπληρούμενη. Ας αναλογιστούμε όλοι τις ευθύνες μας και ο καθένας από το μετερίζι του ας κάνει πράξη το χρέος του εκτελώντας τη θητεία του στη ράτσα.

Άλλωστε εάν εμείς δεν αγωνιστούμε για το τόπο μας τότε ποιός; Αυτό το χώμα δεν πρέπει να το πουλήσουμε. Δεν πρέπει να απαρνηθούμε τους νεκρους μας. Χωρίς το αίμα τους το δέντρο της δική μας ελευθερίας δεν θα είχε καρποφορήσει και ο Ελληνισμός θα ήταν παρα μια ιστορική αναφορά.

Ας παραδειγματιστούμε απο τα λόγια και τις πράξεις του στρατηγού Γιάννη Μακρυγιάννη, ενός αγράμματου υιού τσοπάνηδων, ο οποίος διηγείται στα απομνημονέυματα του για την επανασταση του 1821: 

«Είχα δυο αγάλματα[...] , ατόφια -φαίνονταν οι φλέβες, τόση εντέλειαν είχαν. Όταν χάλασαν τον Πόρο, τά 'χαν πάρει κάτι στρατιώτες, και στ’Άργος θα τα πουλούσαν κάτι Ευρωπαίων· χίλια τάλαρα γύρευαν [...]. Πήρα τους στρατιώτες, τους μίλησα: ‘Αυτά, και δέκα χιλιάδες τάλαρα να σας δώσουνε, να μην το καταδεχτείτε να βγουν από την πατρίδα μας. Γι’αυτά πολεμήσαμε’». 

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής

Δικηγόρος & Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας

http://vasilisgiavris.blogspot.com.au/

NATO deployment in the Aegean Sea and Greek issues of concern

The recent decision by the Greek and Turkish governments, albeit after much political pressure been applied by the EU, to allow deployment of a NATO fleet in the Aegean Sea should raise some fundamental issues of concern for Greece. 

The NATO fleet is said to conduct reconnaissance, monitoring and surveillance to provide information to Greece, Turkey and the EU (via its agency Frontex) to deal with traffickers and help stem refugees entering Greece from Turkey.

However, both NATO and the EU have never recognized Greece’s territorial sea borders nor have they accepted Greece’s declared airspace zone. Indeed, both organisations have been a "hesitant observer" in this regard. Both have traditionally chosen to adopt a “hands off” policy toward Greek-Turkish disputes in the Aegean Sea and have refrained from undertaking any active dispute resolution measures.

As such, the recent declaration by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Standing Maritime Group 2 that:

“Greek and Turkish forces will not operate in each other’s territorial waters and airspace” and that “NATO vessels can deploy in the territorial waters of Greece and Turkey” 

assumes that such waters and airspace have been agreed upon. This cannot be further from the truth and therein lay the following concerns for Greece:

• Greece has declared a 10 nautical mile territorial air defense zone for aviation and air policing purposes. Turkey objects to this declaration and only recognizes Greek sovereignty over 6 nautical miles. Will Greek airplanes be precluded from operating in the “disputed” 4 nautical mile zone? 
• Turkey erroneously challenges the sovereignty of numerous small islands, islets and rocks in the Aegean Sea that, according to Turkey, have not been specifically ceded to Greece by way of international treaties. Will Greek ships and planes be precluded from operating in Greece’s declared territorial sea and airspace zones emanating from these islands? 
• Will Greek vessels and airplanes be limited to operate only at non contested waters and airspace? If so, could this not potentially be exploited by Turkey and used to set a precedent for claims over disputed territorial waters and airspace zones?
• Greece has consistently refused to concede that a territorial sea dispute per se exists with Turkey but rather promotes the view that the claims made by Turkey are unilateral in nature. Does the agreed NATO deployment affect this position?

The above questions reflect serious concerns which emanate from the current presence of NATO forces in the Aegean Sea. One hopes that the Greek government has appropriately considered these issues and has mitigated all risks. There is no doubt that Greece must actively work towards appropriately dealing with the unfolding humanitarian crisis and should engage the international community to help do so. However, the presence of NATO forces should not constitute a de-facto dereliction of Greek entitlements and sovereignty in the Aegean Sea.

by Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist) 

http://vasilisgiavris.blogspot.com.au/

Thucydides, Realism and International Relations: Might -v-Right?

National security is not determined in vacuum. It is underpinned by a variety of analytical languages which provide a conceptual framework upon which national security and foreign policy decisions are analyzed and explained. Whilst there are a plethora of analytical languages and theoretical perspectives, including Marxist, constructivist, idealist and liberal internationalist which provide competing explanations of world affairs, realist notions of state conflict and international relations have dominated foreign policy agendas and perceptions of national security.

Realism

The adoption of a unified realist theory is a difficult task given the existence of a variety of strands to such an approach but a core set of common values can be relied upon.The realist account of world affairs is centered on the notion that the state holds supreme power and authority which helps assure order and security “internally” for within states “human nature usually is tamed by hierarchical political authority and rule” (Waltz 1979 & Donnelly 2000). Realists claim that the “the state of nature is a state of war” which encourages the worst in human nature and results in states being forced to operate in total anarchy and chaos (Waltz 1979).

Realists take the view that other institutions and instruments, such as the United Nations and International Law, cannot be relied upon to secure peace and guarantee a state’s survival and security since in an anarchic order “self help is necessarily the principle of action” (Waltz 1979). Realists like Morgenthau oppose the use of a “legalistic” or “moralistic” approach to national security (Simpson 2005). They maintain that international law can only exist in circumstances where there is a balance of power between states (Jütersonke 2006). According to Oppenheim in circumstances where states cannot keep one another in check, no rules of law will have any force, since in a unipolar world the most powerful State will always act in accordance to its discretion and as such disobey the law (Jütersonke 2006).

Thucydides

The extent to which national security should be influenced by issues of “morality” and “law” has been the issue of serious debate amongst scholars and foreign policy officials alike. This issue was discussed in an exchange between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in 1793 where Jefferson maintained that the US was legally compelled to support France in its war against England whereas Hamilton maintained that no legal obligation could require the US to jeopardize its national interest (Moore 1973). 

However, the inception of this debate is generally accredited to Athenian historian and political philosopher Thucydides (460 – c. 400 BC). Perceived by many scholars as the father of political realism, Thucydides raised the question whether the norms of morality and justice should prevail or dictate relations among states as opposed to power and brutal force. In his History of the Peloponnesian War Thucydides provides an account of the dialogue that took place between the representatives of Athens and those of the island of Melos just before the Athenians were to instigate an attack on the island (the Melian Dialogue).

The Athenians demanded Melian submission and royalties appealing to the reality that they were a superior military power and as such claiming that it was in the interest of the Melians to surrender to their demands. According to Thucydides, the Athenian’s articulated the belief 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”. 

The Melians rejected such argument themselves relying on the notion of decency and morality. It was their view that there is "such a thing as fair play and just dealing" and that they were standing "for what is right against what is wrong". Ultimately the Melians refused the Athenian demands and were defeated. This resulted in all male Melians of military age to be killed and all women and children sold as slaves.

Moral Chaos

The repeated failure of international law and the United Nations to deter and punish illegal wars of aggression (i.e. punishing Turkey for its illegal invasion and continuing military occupation of Cyprus) may, to some, give credence to the realist account of the world. However, the question remains whether such account should always endure or whether international society must finally recognize that to achieve peace all nations must adhere to the rule of law and common standards of morality. Lasting peace and stability cannot be achieved without justice, accountability and reconciliation for to borrow Dutch humanist Erasmus’s words, justice “restrains bloodshed, punishes guilt, defends possessions and keeps people safe from oppression”. 

The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by Thucydides in Athens more than 2,500 years ago. It is time to re-visit the questions Thucydides first posed in this book and understand the dangerous practice of abandoning morality in international affairs. Moral chaos breeds an international society drunk with desire for more power and wealth ultimately leading to continual failure, misanthropy and brutality.

by Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist) 

http://vasilisgiavris.blogspot.com.au/