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

Initial overview of the proposed agreement between Greece and FYROM

The proposed final agreement of the differences between the Hellenic Republic and FYROM (“the proposed agreement”) is earmarked for execution by the respective countries Prime Ministers this Sunday 17 June 2018. Whilst the proposed agreement has only recently been released and further time will be necessary to digest its legal intricacies an initial legal summary of the agreement is enclosed. By no means is this intended to be a full analysis of the proposed agreement.

State Name

FYROM will be formally called the “Republic of North Macedonia”. There is no reference in the document to “Severna Makedonija” as previously stated by the Greek government. It is agreed by all parties that the name North Macedonia will be used erga omnes meaning that it will be the name used by all states and by everyone inside and outside FYROM. FYROM will also be required to amend its constitution to reflect such a name change.

Greece has conceded use of the term “Macedonia” whilst FYROM has conceded to adopt the word “North”. The adoption of a new name erga omnes is a positive step as previously FYROM refused to have any proposed name change erga omnes. All states that have previously recognized FYROM as “Republic of Macedonia” will now refer to it as “North Macedonia”. I disagree with the proposed name and if there was no other option but to have the name “Macedonia” conceded then I think the correct prefix would need to be “Slavic” or at the very worst "Vardaska" or “New”. 

Nationality 

The proposed agreement stipulates that the citizens of FYROM will be referred to as “Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia”. This will be registered in all travel documents including passports. The proposed agreement does not refer the citizens of FYROM as plain “Macedonian” but adds the reference to “citizen of Northern Macedonia”. Whilst all travel documents will have such full reference it may expected that over time the reference to nationality by international media will retain the current customary reference to “Macedonian”. 

Language 

The parties propose that the official language of FYROM will be referred to as “Macedonian”. Article 7 (4) makes it clear that FYROM acknowledges that its reference to “Macedonian" language is a South Slavic language and in no way related to ancient Hellenic civilization of the northern region of Greece. The proposed agreement refers to the “Macedonian language” being recognized by the Third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names that took place in Greece in 1977. Having undertaken a quick search and review of the available conference papers it seems that: 

• the conference was chaired by Professor L.N Mavridis; 
• there indeed was references to the adoption of the “Cyrillic Macedonian language” as a language existing in Yugoslavia; and 
• there seems to be no objection on the use of the name “Macedonian” raised by Greece in its official delegation paper nor by L.N Mavridis in his chairperson address. 

Whilst I reserve the right to further examine the said conference and its published resolutions before adopting any formal conclusions, it seems that this conference could be used to indicate some form of acquiescence and as such exert pressure on Greece. However, by no means can its resolutions or findings be legally binding on Greece today and to state so is legally wrong. The reference to the language of FYROM "as Macedonian" is unnaceptable. At the very worst it should be referred to as "Slavic-Macedonian".

Effect on Diaspora organizations 

Arguably, pursuant to Article (1)(3) FYROM diaspora organizations that are in any way funded by FYROM will be required to adopt the reference to “Northern Macedonia”. Practically this will be very hard to police. Moreover, if such organizations are not funded by the FYROM government then they will not have to adopt such name change. 

It should be noted that the proposed agreement makes no reference nor impose any restrictions on the use of the name Macedonia by Greece and Greek community organizations abroad. 

Territorial integrity 

The proposed agreement makes it clear that each party irrevocably recognizes each other’s borders and does not have any claim against the other’s territory. Most importantly the proposed agreement makes it clear that neither party shall allow its territory to be used by any group or individual to carry out subversive and secessionist actions against the other party. As such, a reference by any FYROM group to liberating “Aegean Macedonia” will be illegal. Whilst this is a positive clause we will need to see how this will be adopted and enforced by FYROM legislators and courts. 

Use of the term “Macedonia” 

Article 7 makes it clear that each party has a different understanding, historical and cultural context of the use of the term “Macedonia”. The use of the term in northern Greece is said to refer to Hellenic civilization from antiquity to today, whilst FYROM acknowledges no such claim. 

Cultural Monuments and Use of the Star of Vergina 

Regarding cultural monuments, statues etc. referring to Hellenic history and civilization Article 8 requires FYROM to “take appropriate corrective action to effectively address the issue and ensure respect for the said patrimony”. Effectively FYROM will need to either remove these or acknowledge their Hellenic nature. On a further positive note FYROM will not be permitted to use the Star of Vergina on its territory. 

Ratification of this agreement by Greece 

Despite this agreement being executed in the next few days it will only be ratified and become binding on Greece if: 

1. FYROM ratifies it in their parliament; 
2. FYROM (if it decides to do so) holds a referendum; 
3. FYROM undertakes all necessary constitutional amendments; and 
4. It is adopted by a majority resolution of the Greek parliament. 

Summary 

The naming dispute with FYROM has been exacerbated by the inaction by respective Greek governments. Over many decades all Greek governments have failed to correctly deal with this issue. Many decades ago they remained silent when it was unwise to do so. In recent decades they failed to resolve the issue when it was beneficial to do so because they refused to put the nation's interest over voter backlash. Whilst the proposed agreement tries and does deal with some important issues to the benefit of Greece, it does contain major flaws with regard to language and nationality that at the very least should be amended. In its current form, this agreement should not be ratified by the Greek parliament.

Vasilis Theodosiou Giavris

(Lawyer & Political Scientist)

An emerging Greece: Looking beyond the political divide.

After ten years of social/political and economic turmoil, an ever-growing threat from Turkey and recent internal tensions over the name dispute with Skopje it is easy to conclude that Greece may be close to passing the point of no return. But once you scratch the surface and look beyond the politics of divide and the extremist rhetoric (both in and outside Greece) is this actually the case? 

Improving Economy

The economy of Greece is the 48th largest in the world. After many years of painful economic and structural reforms its seems very likely that the Greek economy may just be turning. The Bank of Greece estimates economic activity to pick up in the medium term, with GDP growing by 2.4 percent in 2018 and 2.5 percent in 2019. The account deficit (that is the measurement of a country's trade where the value of the goods and services it imports exceeds the value of the goods and services it exports) has substantially fallen. Today there is a substantially healthier balance between what Greece imports and exports - indeed according to Bank of Greece governor Yannis Stournaras the current account deficit has effectively being in balance over the last three years. 

Recent consecutive credit rating increases and positive outlook by the likes of Standard & Poor's, Fitch and other credit agencies give further credence to the view that Greek economy is recovering. Yes, Greek bonds are still considered non-investment grade speculative however there is a heightened improved global financial sentiment. Only a few weeks ago, Greece was able to issue a new seven-year bond and raise 3 billion euros at a yield of 3.5%. To put this in perspective Greece was able to borrow funds from the international markets at the lowest rate of interest in over 11 years. 

The current bailout agreement expires in mid-2018. On a further positive note, there is a consensus by international economic analysts that Greece will not require a new bailout agreement and will be provided with the much-anticipated debt relief – that is always subject to Greece continuing its structural reforms and barring any global economic downturn. To permit a smooth transition to permanent international funding Greece may choose to obtain a precautionary EU credit line. Greece will still be under post bailout supervision regime however it seems that this will be more focused on achieving agreed key performance indicators as opposed to micromanaging how these will be met. 

Have these changes adequately trickled down to the public? Absolutely not. However, as long as all Greek governments continue to adopt a reformist approach to the economy, taxation, judiciary, private enterprise and public sector they soon will. 

Foreign Policy

Provocations in the Aegean Sea by Turkey are not new. These skirmishes take place daily over many years forcing Greece to spend billions of dollars on military equipment. However, the threat by Turkey is real and increasing. Turkey is nervous and remains deeply insecure especially with its military involvement in Syria. Greece cannot afford to be idle and complacent – both diplomatically and military.

Greece has correctly refused to succumb to the increased polemic rhetoric of Turkish President Erdogan (and Greek trigger-happy warmongers) and has not volunteered to be dragged into a war by escalating tensions in the Aegean Sea. Greece has correctly made it clear to all and sundry that it will not hesitate to defend its borders. It must continue to insist that resolution to disputes should only be achieved by the implementation of United Nations Resolutions, International Conventions, European Acquis and International Law.

Having one large and aggressive neighbour to contend with is more than enough for Greece. A triple front with Turkey, Albania and Skopje is not prudent. Greece is wisely attempting to find inroads to resolve its issues with both Skopje and Albania. It is imperative that these issues be adequately resolved in order to avert Erdogan’s deep-seated strategy of neo-Ottomanism in the Balkans – that is the desire for both Albania and Skopje to become Turkish satellite states. The choice is very clear. Either these states will resolve their issues with Greece and soon enter the European Union or otherwise left in their own devices they may follow the path to Turkey - with substantial security ramifications for Greece. By averting all threats from the north Greece can only win. Greece will be able to solely focus on its problems with Turkey and will upgrade its role as the leading Balkan politico-economic power and bastion of regional stability.

Where to from here?

Not all is doom and gloom. There are positive developments taking place daily. The question remains what do we want? What do we wish to achieve? Are we willing to avoid a race to the bottom that will cause us to disintegrate within an internal misunderstanding and hatred? Do we not realise that the problem with racing to the bottom of the pit is that we may just win such race and remain there? There is a clear choice that we must all make. Maybe we should choose not to see traitors everywhere. Maybe it is wise to ignore the opportunistic rhetoric of hate and political divisions based on yesteryear's politics. Maybe it is time to work towards consensus and harmony and invest in the abilities of the Greek people. 

Vasilis Theodosiou Giavris

(Lawyer & Political Scientist)

Standing opposed the politics of Greek populism, lies and misery

The name dispute issue with Skopje is of fundamental importance to all Greek people. Regrettably, it has been hijacked by demagogues preoccupied with fulfilling their own (and their internal/external patron sponsors) personal and political agendas. It is farcical that the major political parties in Greece do not have a uniform approach to this issue and have failed to achieve national consensus. The absence of a common front and national planning has resulted in a serious risk that Greece will be defeated in this matter. Responsibility lays on the entire political spectrum and media outlets that continue to mislead and invest in political division and commotion. 

However, the greatest problem facing Greece today is not the name dispute with Skopje – it is the economy and rapid population decline. These two problems are intertwined and directly linked to the country's foreign policy. Both have severe ramifications on our relations with Turkey, our greatest threat, and our neighbours in the Balkan peninsula. After all, the ability to exercise foreign influence is primarily dependant on the internal strength of a state and Greece, with its current social/political divisions, economic turmoil and aging population, is lacking in such dynamism. 

Similarly, population balances in the Balkans are quickly being overturned. The population of Turkey and the number of Albanians in the Balkan peninsula is rising rapidly. In contrast, in Greece there is a demographic contraction. Eurostat estimates that by the year 2080 the population of Greece will have fallen by 3.5 million! As a result, the Greek nation is shrinking with all the inevitable consequences that frequently follow. Besides, in geopolitics there are no gaps since increasing populations will always desire to fill the gaps left by declining populations.

Unfortunately, young Greek people continue to emigrate abroad, and the ones staying behind are not bearing many children. As long as the economy remains weak and unemployment high, this downward spiral will continue. The economy will remain weak if we refuse to impose the appropriate reforms and structural changes that the country needs and we continue to invest in polarisation and controversy. It will remain weak if we constantly demand change of governments, if we continue to blame others and never take ownership of our wrongdoings and seek to immediately redress them. With ongoing strikes, demonstrations, aphorisms and the politics of misery, Greece will not go forward. In such a climate of uncertainty, one cannot expect investment and growth or the return of young people to Greece. 

Issues such as sub-replacement fertility and creating incentives to attract the return of people who recently migrated abroad, including some second and third generation Greeks living abroad, remain outside the political agenda. The reason they do so is simple. These issues do not sell, they do not polarise, they do not immediately bring party political benefits. A protest rally for these issues will never take place and as long as Greeks continue to focus on the tree and lose sight of the forest, this will never change. 

Within this fluid state, Greece is today called upon to carefully manoeuvre between the Scylla of populism and the Charybdis of deceit whilst simultaneously standing its ground in an aggressive neighbourhood. But today cannot come from yesterday only nor from the proponents of loud, proud and ignorant. The future cannot be built on jingoisms, whipping up passion, lies and false dilemmas. The power of Greece is commensurate with its knowledge. As long as the citizens of Greece permit themselves to be deceived by populism, by false and misleading media reports and Facebook rants, the country will remain weak and its citizens will continue to suffer. 

It is imperative that we stand up and oppose those who wish to immobilize every attempt to escape our current predicament. That we oppose the cycle of fanaticism, misinformation and instability. Let us refuse to adhere to hollow reflex politics. Against populism, lies and misery, let us uphold a new patriotism. A new patriotism based on the renewal of knowledge. One that is not afraid to speak the truth and is able to balance vision and popular desire with diplomacy and realism. 

Vasilis Theodosiou Giavris

(Lawyer - Political Scientist)

Melbourne, February 15, 2018

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/

Greece: Is an extension of the Loan Agreement not an extension and recognition of the MoU (Mnimonio)?

Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist)

The Greek Government has today received a four (4) month extension to the Master Financial Assistance Facility Agreement (“the MFAFA”).

The MFAFA was entered into in 2012 and contains terms and condition Vis-à-vis loans to Greece*. The MFAFA makes reference to various memorandum agreements (past and future) all together referred to as Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) The MoU contain specific terms and conditions to be followed by Greece in regard to various areas including fiscal policy.

The original agreement precluded funds to be disbursed subsequent to 31 December 2014. However, the previous Greek government sought a two (2) month extension and as such funds could be disbursed up until 28 February 2015 (in this regard a new MFAFA Second Amendment Agreement was entered into**).

The new Greek government has watered down its previous rhetoric and by letter dated 18 February 2015, it requested a further extension, stating amongst other that: “The Greek authorities honour Greece's financial obligations to all its creditors as well as state our intention to cooperate with our partners in order to avert technical impediments in the context of the Master Facility Agreement which we recognise as binding vis-a-vis its financial and procedural content” ***.

The Greek government insists that the agreed extension relates to the extension of the MFAFA and not the MoU («μνημόνιο») and as such is keeping its word to the public (ending the mnimonio).

Food for Thought

Clause 7 in the MFAFA states that: “The availability and the provision of Financial Assistance under this Agreement,…….shall, unless otherwise specified, be conditional upon (i) the Beneficiary Member State's compliance with the measures set out in the MoU and..”.

Today's Eurogroup Statement**** (approved by Greece) amongst other states:

"The Eurogroup notes, in the framework of the existing arrangement, the request from the Greek authorities for an extension of the Master Financial Assistance Facility Agreement (MFFA), which is underpinned by a set of commitments The purpose of the extension is the successful completion of the review on the basis of the conditions in the current arrangement, making best use of the given flexibility which will be considered jointly with the Greek authorities and the institutions. This extension would also bridge the time for discussions on a possible follow-up arrangement between the Eurogroup, the institutions and Greece. ".It further states that: "The Greek authorities reiterate their unequivocal commitment to honour their financial obligations to all their creditors fully and timely". 

Is an extension of the Loan Agreement not an extension and recognition of the MoU (Mnimonio) albeit with the ability to make mutually agreed changes to the current arrangement? Was this not the case anyway?  

*http://www.efsf.europa.eu/attachments/efsf_greece_fafa.pdf

**http://www.efsf.europa.eu/…/Second%20Amendment%20Agreement%…

***http://www.reuters.com/…/eurozone-greece-request-idUSL5N0VT…
****http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/02/150220-eurogroup-statement-greece/

The road to Asia Minor….

By Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist)

Ignorance of the past is wrong. Even worse is the systematic misinterpretation of the present for motives untoward and party political gains. The promise of a better future must be accompanied by realistic steps and certainty in its achievement. Current political maneuverings and the politics of hate serve only to retain the established status quo - both that of the major parties that have maintained and abused governmental authority and power but also those in the periphery that have in perpetuity retained parliamentary seats in exchange of hollow rhetoric and unrealistic solutions.

We are in the midst of a tragedy. We must not forget this. By ceding the initiative all political parties are choosing to react to public outcry by placing themselves in a position to maximise future electoral gains. Every decision adopted whether pro-bailout or anti-bailout is reactive and made with the electoral landscape in mind. In doing so, politicians have once again chosen to compromise the future of the Greek people.

The people require the honest truth and the truth of the current situation is simple. Greek society is in deep paralysis. The political parties elected to represent their constituents have refused to unify in the face of adversity. Given the current realities, Greece requires a unified multi-party government. A government that is able to immediately implement some of the beneficial provisions contained in the bailout agreements (i.e. tax reforms, drastic changes to legal system and certain privatisations) whilst simultaneously providing a unified front to renegotiate those measures that are both oppressive and offer no stimulus for growth - measures that have only been included to punish the Greek people for alleged sins of the past (i.e. drastic pension/wage cuts etc.,).

Our elected politicians must not lose sight of Aristotle's belief in "prudence" as a paradigm. They must "visualize" the future when deciding to act. A future that is attainable, that acknowledges and learns from the ills of the past. A future that seeks to strengthen democratic institutions and contribute towards the true prosperity of Greece and its citizens as opposed to fulfilling party political or personal agendas.

The road to Asia Minor has been previously treaded. There is a case to be made for the need not to repeat it.

The end of ‘Metapolitefsi’: The need for radical Hellenic change

by Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist)

On 12 February 2012 a parliamentary majority comprising of 199 Members of the Hellenic Parliament voted yes to the adoption of the second “Mnimonio”. This date marks the end of '"Metapolitefsi" - the end of the post-junta period of Greek history that promised a great deal yet delivered much less.

Not since the Second World War and the Greek Civil War have so many Greek citizens been subjugated and starved. Consecutive Greek governments have failed to do what they were elected to do: to provide economic prosperity and equal opportunity to all Hellenes. The rich and well connected have for many decades benefited enormously whilst the many have been left in the outer.

Reliant on the mercy of corporate fickleness Greece faces today an international delegitimation campaign. How we choose to react to the current developments is pivotal. Sitting idle and complacent is of no benefit.

The survival of Greece and the prosperity of its citizens require us to reform in response to the ills of the moment. In doing so, we must seek the sources and causes of such ills. These are not to be found in cheap rhetoric, racist conspiracy theories and armchair revolutions. They are much deeper. They require careful analysis and relate to our global economic system and the existing socio-political structures in Greece.

Internationally, the unregulated free market has failed. The common good and well being of citizens has been sacrificed in favor of corporate greed and profit. Democracy is challenged by “corporatocracy” whilst the state is challenged by global financial predators. Democratic governments worldwide need to construct a new anthropocentric global financial system that will act as a regulator, guarantor and stabilizer of the global economy. It is imperative that such system ensures an ethical and viable approach to international trade and global economic integration.

In Greece, existing socio-political structures have helped create anti-system attitudes and corrupt practices. We need to acknowledge that adequate health, employment, justice and education were and remain out of reach for ordinary Greek citizens and the poor are increasingly marginalized. As a result, incentives have and continue to be provided for people to attempt to operate outside the system. We need to acknowledge that changing the existing socio-political structures requires painful reformist decisions. Band-aid solutions can no longer suffice.

The adoption of the “Mnimonio” is only the epitaph, the climax in a long and painful cataclysm. We must understand that long before the “Mnimonio” was adopted we, inadvertently, slowly and silently acquiesced to ceding control over our destiny to foreign influences. We did so by becoming complacent, by compromising our morals and our patriotism, by turning a blind eye, by electing corrupt politicians and by seeking personal gain irrespective of the damage caused to the wider community.

For too long the Greek political elite were permitted to operate above the law and enjoy special legal immunities in relation to corruption and criminal matters. This cannot be tolerated any more. We must no longer permit our political and economic leaders to short-change us. Parliamentary immunity must be abolished and there must be equal subjection of all citizens before the ordinary law and courts.

Radical reform is today more then ever necessary. It is only through radical reform that we can re-claim our future. It is only through radical reform and national regeneration that we can redeem our humanity and promise a better future to the generations to follow.

Now is the time to change the trajectory of Greece.

Now is the time to turn a crisis into the mother of true Hellenic change.