Δεν πρέπει να καθίσουμε να μας σβήσουν απ΄ τον χάρτη...

Η διαχρονικά ηττοπαθής νοοτροπία των εκάστοτε Ελληνικών κυβερνήσεων πρέπει να λάβει τέλος. Χρωστάμε, και μάλιστα πολλά. Αλλά αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να καθίσουμε να μας σβήσουν απ΄ τον χάρτη. Η εργασία, η πρόσβαση στη δωρεάν παιδεία και η παροχή υψηλού επιπέδου δωρεάν υπηρεσιών υγείας προς όλους τους πολίτες αποτελούν αναφαίρετα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα κατοχυρωμένα από την Οικουμενική Διακήρυξη των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων των Ηνωμένων Εθνών και το Διεθνές Σύμφωνο για τα Οικονομικά, Κοινωνικά και Πολιτιστικά Δικαιώματα. Κανένα κράτος και καμία Τρόικα δεν έχει οποιοδήποτε δικαίωμα να επιδίδεται σε ενέργειες ή να εκτελεί πράξεις που αποβλέπουν στην άρνηση των δικαιωμάτων και των ελευθεριών αυτών.

by Vasilis Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist

Η λύση δεν βρίσκεται στην «Γερμανοποίηση» της Ευρώπης

by Vasilis Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist

Υπάρχει άμεση ανάγκη επαναπροσδιορισμού του ρόλου της Ευρωπαϊκής 'Ενωσης σε σχέση με τα σημερινά τεκταινόμενα και τα καθημερινά προβλήματα του πολίτη. Η λύση δεν βρίσκεται στην «Γερμανοποίηση» της Ευρώπης και την επικυριαρχία του Βερολίνου. Η λύση βρίσκεται στην διαμόρφωση μιας πιο δημοκρατικής και πιο κοινωνικής Ευρώπης.

Human Rights do not warrant an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ approach

by Vasilis Giavris- Lawyer & Political Scientist

The term human rights is relatively new having emerged into usage subsequent to the end of the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations. Prior to this the term had not been systematically used although the concept of human rights is very old - its early formulations arguably found in Ancient Greece and in particular in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and Stoics such as Zeno who developed and championed the idea of ‘natural law’. Influenced by these early writings documents such as the Magna Carta in 1215, the English Bill of Rights in 1689, the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789, and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1791 have continuously asserted individual rights and are considered by most as the written predecessors to many of today’s human rights writings. 

The horrific events that transpired during the Second World War which resulted in the extermination of millions of people by Nazi Germany led to a renewed interest in the creation of global standards for the protection of individuals from governmental abuse and of mechanisms to hold governments accountable for the infliction of such abuse. The calls for such global standards of respect of basic human rights culminated in the adoption in 1948 by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which became the “foundation document” for subsequent human rights covenants and conventions.

Its preamble famously states that “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world”.

The importance of the UDHR cannot be underestimated since it served as a basis for the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which predominantly deals with issues such as the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which amongst other advances the right to non-discrimination, the right to work, right to education and the right to adequate standard of living.

In conjunction with subsequent treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted in 1979 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 the Covenants and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have substantially changed the way human rights have been perceived and dealt with by governments all over the world.

Nonetheless, despite these changes flagrant disregard to democratic processes and individual human rights continues to take place both in the developing and the developed world under the pseudo-guise of cultural relativism and nationalism. Moreover, the treatment of asylum seekers all over the world has been appalling and devoid of basic human decency.

It is imperative that we understand that human rights are not a cultural war an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ approach but rather despite there inherent inadequacies represent a generic attempt to promote and maintain human dignity as a common entitlement applicable to all humans, irrespective of social status, gender, religion or country of origin.

As Hellenic citizens of the world it is our duty to promote social progress, prosperity, equality and a universal standard of human rights.

As Hellenic citizens of the world it is our duty to uphold and promote human rights, natural law and fundamental freedoms and recognize that these are common entitlements that should be afforded to all humans irrespective of social status, gender, political beliefs, and religion or ethnic origins.

As Hellenic citizens of the world it is our duty to recognize that the right to dignity, the right to work, the right to education and the right to an adequate standard of living are human rights that must be afforded to every human both within the confines of the Hellenic State and internationally.

Φτάνει πια η ηττοπάθεια..

by Vasilis Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist

Πότε θα κατανοήσουμε ότι η αναζήτηση λύσεων στα εθνικά μας θέματα πρέπει να στηρίζονται στην εθνική αυτοπεποίθηση, στο εθνικό συμφέρον, στα ψηφίσματα του ΟΗΕ, τις Διεθνές Συμβάσεις, το Ευρωπαϊκό κοινοτικό κεκτημένο και το Διεθνές Δίκαιο; Φτάνει πια η ηττοπάθεια. Αρκετά με την παθητικότητα.

Greece and the German Occupation Loan

by Vasilis Giavris - Lawyer and Political Scientist

"We are here to remind you that human sacrifice is our own glamorous history and that the cruelty of man is a black page in your history. We are here to remind you that you can not just claim from Greece. You also have unfulfilled debts.” *

* Resolution, presented to the German Embassy in Greece, by survivors, family members and compatriots of the victims of the German atrocities in the village of Distomo, Greece.

The German Occupation loan was obtained by means of duress by Germany from Greece in 1942. This loan is separate to, and different from, the demands for German reparation for the mass murders and destruction caused by Germany in Greece. This loan still remains outstanding.

The loan was forced on Greece by Germany during the Second World War in order to partially fund the German occupation of Greece but primarily to fund the German war machine. In today’s terms, the exact outstanding loan amount remains officially undetermined although some Greek academics value it at 8 billion Euros whilst others estimate the outstanding debt to be over 100 billion Euros. Whilst these figures will need to be carefully examined and determined by Greek officials there is no doubt that a substantial amount of money is currently owed to Greece by Germany.

The matter of the loan repayment was first raised by the Greek government with Germany in 1945-1946 and subsequently in 1953 and again in 1964. It was initially noted that repayment would take place upon the unification of Germany as Germany maintained that “it was not right that it shoulder the entire burden of reparations, that one should wait until reunification”. However no such repayment has been made. In 1995, the Greek Government officially raised this matter in writing by serving a note verbale on Germany requesting the start of negotiations between the two countries on this issue. Such talks were rejected by Germany and unfortunately, since 1995, no Greek Government has again, officially, raised this issue.

I fail to see why consecutive Greek governments refuse to raise this matter with Germany and neglect to undertake all necessary political and legal action available to have this loan repaid. If Greece is required to meet its loan obligations, some of which date back to the 1880’s, then there is no reason why the same should not apply to Germany.

As Greeks of the Diaspora the repayment of the German Occupation loan does not only constitute a legal requirement but also a sensitive moral issue. We must not forget that the Second World War and the German occupation of Greece was the primary cause of the mass Greek migration that took place in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s and which resulted in millions of Greeks being “forced” to abandon their homeland and their families in search of employment and a better life in the United States, Australia and Europe. The German occupation of Greece is not only a historical event but also a political reality that the Diaspora Greeks are reminded of on a daily basis.

Greece must not abandon its demands and must insist that Germany honors its international legal and moral obligations.

The Aegean Sea Dispute in Legal Context: Grey Zones – Imia Islets

by Vasilis Giavris  - Lawyer and Political Scientist

Relations between Greece and Turkey have been characterized by a mutual mistrust emanating from a long history of conflict, animosity and military confrontation. Most alarmingly, Turkey has in the last decades challenged the sovereignty of numerous small islands, islets and rocks in the Aegean Sea that have not, according to Turkey, been specifically ceded to Greece by way of international treaties. Turkey maintains that since these have not been ceded by way of treaty and since, according to Turkey, no agreement concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries between the two countries in the Aegean exist then these are territories without sovereignty and therefore stateless! 

Turkey has made explicit reference to five Greek inhabited islets in the proximity of Samos and the Dodecanese that have been under Greek administration since 1912 and 1947 respectively. Turkey has gone as far as to claim that 132 islands and islets in the Aegean, currently under Greek administration, belong to Turkey. 

Turkey further maintains that Greece is precluded from exercising sovereignty over these small islands, islets and rocks and accuses Greece of trying to create “fait accompli”. It accuses Greece of territorial expansion beyond areas ceded to her by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. 

The claims made by Turkey lack both legal and academic merit. Greece, quite rightly, denies the existence of any grey zones in the Aegean Sea and denies the existence of any dispute in this regard. The issue of sovereignty in the region has long been settled by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 which very clearly deal with these matters. 

The Lausanne Peace Treaty 1923, to which both Greece and Turkey are signatories, settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and the borders between Greece and Turkey. Pursuant to Article 12 (1) of this Treaty, the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria were ceded to Greece whilst the islands of Imbros, Tenedos, the Rabbit Islands and islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remained under Turkish sovereignty. 

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty 1923, Turkey renounced in favour of Italy all rights and title over the Dodecanese islands, Castellorizzo and the islets dependent thereon. Moreover, pursuant to Article 14 of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, signed by Italy and the allied powers after the culmination of World War II, Italy ceded full sovereignty over the Dodecanese islands as well as the adjacent islets to Greece. 

The Lausanne Peace Treaty cannot be unilaterally interpreted by Turkey to promote its irredentist demands and agenda. This treaty makes it clear that all islands and islets situated outside the three mile zone around the Turkish mainland coast, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and the Rabbit Islands, have been awarded to Greece and those located within this zone awarded to Turkey. 

The demarcation is clear-cut which explains why there is no need for these treaties to refer by name to all the islands and islets especially given that there are over two thousand islands and islets involved. Turkey erroneously interprets this provision to mean that all islands and islets not specifically named in Article 12 or not specifically ceded to Greece by way of Treaty belong to Turkey as the rightful heir to the Ottoman Empire or otherwise remain as grey zones that need to be delimited by way of agreement between Turkey and Greece. 

THE IMIA ISLETS 

The Imia islets are located in the southeast Aegean approximately 3.6 miles from the Turkish coast and approximately 5.5 miles from Kalymnos, the nearest major Greek island. Whilst these islets are uninhabited rocks the dispute over their sovereignty nearly culminated in a full scale war between Greece and Turkey in January 1996 when both countries landed Special Forces and raised their respective flags on the islets. The crisis was defused several days later with US “intervention”…. and both countries reluctantly withdrew their respective forces and flags from the islets. 

Turkey maintains the view that the Imia islets are Turkish since they were not specifically referred to in neither the Lausanne Peace Treaty 1923 nor in the Paris Peace Treaty 1947. 

However, the Imia islets are not situated within Turkey’s three miles zone (as required by the Lausanne Peace Treaty 1923) and they were ceded by Turkey to Italy, who in turn ceded their sovereignty to Greece. 

The protocol executed by Turkey and Italy in December of 1932, which sites the Imia islets as belonging to Italy and as such ceded to Greece under the Paris Peace Treaty 1947, acts to further solidify the legitimacy of Greece’s claims. The Greek claims are further supported by Turkish maps - both civilian and military - issued before Turkey raised its present concerns. These clearly confirm Greek sovereignty over the islets. 

Despite exercising its sovereign rights over Imia islets for half a century Greece has, as a gesture of good will, proposed that Turkey submit its claims to the Imia islets to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Not surprisingly, Turkey refuses to accept this proposal. 

Turkey’s attempt to create “grey zones” in the Aegean and challenge the legitimacy of Greece’s claims over the Imia islets lacks any legal merit under international treaty and customary law. These baseless claims undermine peace and stability in the whole of South-eastern Europe. Most alarmingly however, they reflect arbitrary claims unilaterally raised by Turkey to challenge Greek sovereignty in the Aegean Sea and overthrow the current status quo. 

Foreign policy does not permit illusions. National autonomy, territorial integrity, sovereignty and the security of Greek citizens cannot be compromised or conceded. Turkish irredentism is a potent form of nationalism and Greece must not remain idle and complacent. On the contrary, Greece must continue to insist that resolution to disputes can only be achieved by the implementation of United Nations Resolutions, International Conventions, European Acquis and International Law.

Eliminating the Structural Factors of Corruption in Greece

by Vasilis Giavris  - Lawyer and Political Scientist

Cultural determinants are often used to explicate or excuse corruption in Greece. The popular perception is that culture is a significant determinant of corrupt behavior and social norms across countries can explain the variation in corruption level. Proponents of this cultural relativist approach maintain that it is a country's cultural context that predisposes people’s views and attitudes to corruption since such attitudes and views are socially-embedded. In this regard, many maintain that corruption in Greece is a remnant of Ottoman rule and a direct manifestation of inherent cultural causes.

However, the proposition that a cultural predisposition to corruption exists as a matter of course is a subjective oversimplification. Such proposition fails to understand that it is political structures that provide the best determinant of corruption in Greece and as such fails to account for the important correlation between corruption, the state and political parties. Whilst cultural factors cannot be totally disregarded, the emergence of political corruption in Greece is more dependant on political factors then inherent cultural causes.

Political influence upon the bureaucracy in Greece is a direct manifestation of the late development of the Greek state and the simultaneous institutionalization of the state bureaucracy alongside the emergence of political parties and the political party system.  This has resulted in a weak executive and the development of patron-client relationships. Indeed one cannot underestimate the construction of patron-client networks between the major political parties and various local factions, unions and business leaders.

The lack of effective or appropriate checks and balances in Greece has inherently facilitated abuse of power and corruption and has promoted and permitted the arbitrary exercise of power by government and political parties. The lack of checks and balances has not permitted a system based regulation that could have prevented one power branch or political group/s from dominating the state apparatus for their own benefit.

 Where to from here?

Corruption in Greece has become systemic but it does not exist in vacuum nor can it be analysed and explained on the basis of existing social norms or cultural particularities. On the contrary, it is political structures that provide the best determinant of corruption in Greece and as such, it is these structures that require urgent modification. This can only be achieved if corruption is treated as a principal national campaign rather then as opportunistic political rhetoric used to quell grassroots dissent and score political mileage.