Trump, Saudi Arabia and à la carte Human Rights

Saudi Arabian Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Turkey. Khashoggi was interrogated, tortured and then killed. It has been widely reported that Khashoggi was cut to pieces in the embassy whilst still alive. Turkish secret recordings of the murder are said to confirm this. 

Khashoggi was a dissident who was critical of the Saudi Royal family. He relocated to the United States in June 2017, where he obtained permanent residency and began writing for the Washington Post. On the day of his murder Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey in order to obtain documents related to his planned marriage. 

The Saudi government initially denied any involvement in the murder. They have since admitted their involvement albeit claiming that the perpetrators were rogue operators who acted without the consent of the Saudi Royal family. 

US President Trump initially criticized the Saudi government for the murder but has since softened his stance. Indeed, Trump has made it clear that there was $450 billion in investments at stake and he will not risk losing such money irrespective of the Saudi actions. Amongst other he has stated that: “I know they’re [Senators] talking about different kinds of sanctions, but they’re [Saudi Arabia] spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs, like jobs and others for this country. I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States”. 

Therein lays Trump's vision of human rights. He will look away if there was a substantial financial gain to be made. But can the world, including the United States, really afford to look away and permit diplomatic posts to be used as torture chambers? What message is this really sending? Must we not truly stand up for human values and champion human dignity? 

Human rights are not a "menu à la carte" where we choose what we want when we want and only when it suits us. We cannot merely enjoy the benefits and the protection offered by these rights whilst ignoring our obligations to uphold and enforce them. It imperative that we honor and respect these irrespective of financial ramifications. 

The decision by Trump to openly and unashamedly value monetary investments above human rights is terrifying. It signifies his world view, namely: moral chaos. But history has dealt with moral chaos in the past. In the Peloponnesian War Thucydides laments at the subversion of Athenian democracy by unscrupulous orators. He maintains that the moral decline of Athens culminated in their decision to invade Sicily and ultimately to the Athenian destruction. Moral chaos brought by the abuse of political language and the collapse of due legal process can only bring demise and destruction. 

Surely this is a much higher price to pay compared to the loss of Saudi petrol dollars.

By 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. Simultaneously, Greece has made it clear to all and sundry that it will not hesitate to defend its borders. That resolution to all disputes can 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 seek to achieve? Are we willing to avoid a race to the bottom that will cause us to disintegrate within an internal misunderstanding and hatred? Should 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

Απέναντι στον λαϊκισμό και το ψέμα πρέπει να αντιτάξουμε ένα Νέο Πατριωτισμό

Εν μέσω συλλαλητηρίων κάποιοι κραυγάζουν να φύγουν οι σημερινοί «προδότες» - να τους αντικαταστήσουμε αμέσως με οποιουσδήποτε άλλους. Άλλωστε όπως λένε χειρότερα δεν γίνεται. Η κραυγές αυτές ακούγονται από την Ελλάδα μέχρι και την ελληνική διασπορά. Βέβαια το ότι οι σημερινοί υπάρχουν διότι τα ίδια άτομα παλιότερα σε άλλα συλλαλητήρια κραύγαζαν υπέρ της αντικατάστασης των προηγούμενων «προδοτών» πάλι με οποιουσδήποτε (δηλαδή τους σημερινούς) μας διαφεύγει. Και έτσι ο κύκλος του φανατισμού, της παραπληροφόρησης και της αστάθειας συνεχίζεται με ολέθριες συνέπειες στη χώρα. 

Το μεγαλύτερο πρόβλημα της Ελλάδος σήμερα δεν είναι το Σκοπιανό. Δυστυχώς το εθνικό αυτό θέμα έχει γίνει προϊόν αισχρής εξυπηρέτησης προσώπων και συμφερόντων του εσωτερικού και εξωτερικού. Έχει δώσει την ευκαιρία σε κάποιους να ονειρεύονται προβολή και καινούργιες καριέρες και σε κάποιους άλλους μεταβολή σε αυταρχικά καθεστώτα. Ως αποτέλεσμα απουσίας κοινού εθνικού σχεδιασμού υπάρχει σοβαρό ρίσκο να οδηγηθεί η Ελλάδα σε ήττα. Υπεύθυνοι είναι όλο το πολιτικό φάσμα αλλά και τα περισσότερα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης που εσκεμμένα παραποιούν και επενδύουν στον διχασμό και την αναμπουμπούλα. 

Οι μεγαλύτερες απειλές της Ελλάδος είναι δύο. Η οικονομία και το δημογραφικό. Τα δύο αυτά προβλήματα είναι συγκοινωνούντα και άμεσα συνδεδεμένα με την εξωτερική πολιτική της χώρας. Και τα δυο έχουν αρνητική επίδραση στις σχέσεις μας με την Τουρκία και τους βαλκάνιους γείτονές μας. Άλλωστε, η δυνατότητα άσκησης επιρροής περισσότερο βασίζεται στην εσωτερική δυναμική ενός κράτους και η Ελλάδα της κρίσης, της οικονομικής ανυπαρξίας και της διχόνοιας δεν κατέχει τέτοια δυναμική. 

Από την άλλη οι πληθυσμιακές ισορροπίες στα Βαλκάνια ανατρέπονται. Ο πληθυσμός της Τουρκίας και των Αλβανών της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου αυξάνεται με γοργούς ρυθμούς. Σε αντίθεση στην Ελλάδα υπάρχει δημογραφικής συρρίκνωση. Η Eurostat υπολογίζει ότι μέχρι το 2080 θα έχει μειωθεί ο πληθυσμός της Ελλάδας κατά 3,5 εκατομμύρια κατοίκους! Ως αποτέλεσμα προμηνύεται συρρίκνωση του έθνους με όλα τα συνεπακόλουθα. Άλλωστε στη γεωπολιτική δεν υπάρχουν κενά. Πάντα οι αυξανόμενοι θα θέλουν να καλύψουν τα κενά που αφήνουν οι φθίνοντες πληθυσμοί.

Δυστυχώς οι Έλληνες νέοι μεταναστεύον στο εξωτερικό και οι απομείναντες δεν γεννούν. Όσο η οικονομία παραμένει ασθενής και η ανεργία υψηλή η φθίνουσα πορεία θα συνεχίζεται. Αυτή η κατάσταση θα διαιωνίζεται όσο κάποιοι αρνούνται να επιβάλουν τις κατάλληλες μεταρρυθμίσεις και δομικές αλλαγές που χρειάζεται η χώρα και συνεχίζουν να επενδύουν στην πόλωση και στην αμφισβήτηση. Με συνεχόμενες απεργίες, διαδηλώσεις, αφορισμούς και μιζέρια ο τόπος δεν θα πάει μπροστά. Σε τέτοιο κλίμα αβεβαιότητας δεν μπορεί να περιμένει κανείς επενδύσεις και ανάπτυξη ούτε την επιστροφή των νέων στην Ελλάδα. 

Η υπογεννητικότητα και το θέμα της επιστροφής στην Ελλάδα των ατόμων που πρόσφατα μετανάστευσαν αλλά και κάποιων Ελλήνων δεύτερης και τρίτης γενιάς του εξωτερικού παραμένει εκτός πολιτικής ατζέντας. Το γιατί είναι πολύ απλό. Το θέμα αυτό δεν πουλάει, δεν πολώνει, δεν συμφέρει πολλούς και διάφορους και δεν φέρνει κομματικά οφέλη. Συλλαλητήριο για αυτό δεν θα γίνει ποτέ. Όσο ο Έλληνας ασχολείται με το δέντρο και όχι με το δάσος αυτό δεν θα αλλάξει ποτέ. 

Μέσα σε αυτή τη ρευστή κατάσταση η Ελλάδα καλείται να πορευτεί μεταξύ τη Σκύλλα του λαϊκισμού και την Χάρυβδη του ψεύδους. Όμως δεν γίνεται το σήμερα να έρχεται μόνο από το χθες. Πρέπει να κοιτάμε μπροστά και όχι μόνο πίσω. Δεν γίνεται το μέλλον να χτιστεί πάνω σε αναλήθειες, σε ψεύτικες ελπίδες και διλλήματα.  

Η δύναμη της Ελλάδος είναι ανάλογη με την γνώση της. Δεν είμαστε όμως άμοιροι ευθυνών. Όσο οι πολίτες της χώρας επιτρέπουν την εξαπάτησή τους από τους λαϊκιστές ταγούς, απο τα ψεύτικα και παραπλανητικά δημοσιεύματα στα περισσότερα ΜΜΕ, στο facebook και στα αλλά κοινωνικά δίκτυα το κράτος θα παραμένει αδύναμο. Και η Ελλάδα περισσότερο από ποτέ χρειάζεται να αποκτήσει δυνατό κράτος. Μόνο έτσι θα επιζήσει και οι πολίτες της θα μπορούν να ατενίσουν με αισιοδοξία το μέλλον. 

Ως εκ τούτου πρέπει να εναντιωθούμε σε αυτούς που δυναμιτίζουν την κάθε απόπειρα να ξεφύγουμε απο τα δεινά μας. Απέναντι στον λαϊκισμό, την ημιμάθεια και τη μιζέρια πρέπει να αντιτάξουμε ένα νέο πατριωτισμό. Έναν πατριωτισμό βασισμένο στην ανανέωση της γνώσης, που γνωρίζει να ισόρροπά το όραμα και την λαϊκή επιθυμία με τη διπλωματία και τον ρεαλισμό. 

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής

(Δικηγόρος - Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας)

Μελβούρνη, 14 Φεβρουαρίου 2018

ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΤΕΡΑ ΜΟΥ ΘΕΟΔΟΣΗ Θ. ΓΙΑΒΡΗ

Ένας χρόνος πέρασε Πατέρα. Μας λείπεις αφάνταστα και σε αναζητούμε σε όλες τις στιγμές μας - βλέπεις δεν μετριάζει ποτέ το βλέμμα της απουσίας σου. H αλήθεια είναι ότι η διαχείριση της έλλειψης σου είναι πολύ δύσκολη. Τίποτα πια δεν είναι το ίδιο. Και πως να είναι άλλωστε. Ξέρω ότι είναι νομοτελειακό την γέννηση να ακολουθεί ο θάνατος. Μα πώς ξεπερνάς τη φωτεινή στιγμή - το ενδιάμεσο μιας ολόκληρης ζωής?

Η θύμηση σου υπάρχει παντού. Παρηγοριά μας είναι το ανέμελο χαμόγελό σου που τριγυρίζει δίπλα μας και δίνει χρώμα στο κουράγιο μας. Τα λόγια σου που έσταζαν φως και συνεχίζουν να υφαίνουν δημιουργικά την καθημερινότητά μας. Η λεβεντιά σου που τόσο υπερήφανα και στωικά υποστήριζες μέσα από τα μεγάλα ναι και τα όχι σου. Το πυρωμένο βλέμμα σου που καθρέπτιζε την πίστη σου στο άφθαρτο και στο αιώνιο. Οι αγώνες που έδωσες για την αξιοπρεπή επιβίωση της οικογένειας σου και των συνανθρώπων σου. Οι φίλοι σου που σου στάθηκαν και σε αγάπησαν αλλά που και εσύ τόσο εκτίμησες και αγάπησες. 

Παρηγοριά μας είναι η αγκαλιά και η αγάπη που απλόχερα μας έδωσες. Μας λάτρευες και το γνωρίζαμε όλοι. Η αγάπη που έδωσες και εισέπραξες από την μητέρα. Οι μνήμες από τα ατέλειωτα ταξίδια στην Ελλάδα που μας χάρισες και μαζί βιώσαμε. Οι ιστορίες που μετέδωσες στα παιδιά και τα εγγόνια σου για τα δίσεκτα χρόνια που γεννήθηκες. Για τα χρόνια της κατοχής, του εμφυλίου, της ορφάνιας, της ξενιτιάς και το νόστο της επιστροφής σε μια Ελλάδα που πάντα βρισκόταν στο επίκεντρο του Είναι σου. 

Τη λύπη μας μετριάζει η δημιουργικότητά σου, η οποία εστιαζόταν στο πνευματικό μόχθο, στις αξίες και στη γη. Άλλωστε, εσύ Πατέρα πάντα αναζητούσες το δικό σου «χωματένιο αλώνι» να πορευτείς – στη λιτότητα και στην αυθεντικότητα έβλεπες την ομορφιά και όχι στην υπερβολή και στην ύλη. 

Πατέρα πριν ένα χρόνο βάρεσε πένθιμα η καμπάνα του χωριού μας, στου Λουκά Αρκαδίας. Επέστρεψες να αναπαυτείς και πάλι στον γενέθλιο τόπο σου. Εκεί που ήθελες. Εκεί που σου ταίριαζε. Κοντά στον πατέρα σου τον Θεοδωρή και την μητέρα σου τη Δήμητρα. Να αγναντεύεις στην αιώνια ζωή το Αρτεμίσιο Όρος (την Κριτσόβα) και τα άλλα Λουκαίτικα βουνά που ως αμούστακος ποιμένας είχες ξυπόλητος χίλιοπερπατήσει και μυηθεί στα μυστικά τους. 

Χαίρε λοιπόν. Χαίρε αλύγιστε, έντιμε και ηλιοφόρε Άντρα, Πατέρα και Παππού. 

Καλή αντάμωση Πατέρα

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής
Δικηγόρος - Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας

Δεν χαρίζουμε..

Δεν χαρίζουμε τον πατριωτισμό και την αγάπη μας για την πατρίδα στους φασίστες και στους ρατσιστές. Δεν χαρίζουμε το πιστεύω μας στην κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα σε νιχιλιστές και σταλινιστές. Ποτέ τα άκρα δεν αποτέλεσαν μια κάποια λύση. Η Ελλάδα θα μεγαλουργήσει μόνο με τον ενστερνισμό της αξιοκρατίας και της αστικής & κοινωνική ευθύνης. Με την υιοθέτηση ενός δημοκρατικού πατριωτισμού που στο επίκεντρο του θα έχει τον Έλληνα πολίτη, την αγάπη για την πατρίδα και τον σεβασμό στον συνάνθρωπο.

We must not allow our patriotism and love for our Hellas to be hijacked by fascists and racists. We must not allow our belief in social justice and human rights to be hijacked by nihilists and Stalinists. No extremity can bring a resolution to the current crisis. Greece can only progress with the adoption of meritocracy, civic responsibility and democratic patriotism which at its core will have the interests of the citizens of Greece and respect for our fellow human beings.

Βασίλης Θεοδοσίου Γιαβρής 

Δικηγόρος - Πολιτικός Επιστήμονας

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/