Eleftherios Venizelos - The Maker of Modern Greece

By Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer and Political Scientist

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

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

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

International Acclaim 

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

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

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

First Balkan War – Liberation of Macedonia and Ipeiros 

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

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

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

Venizelos inspecting the Macedonian war front

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

Second Balkan War - 16 June 1913 

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

First World War – July 1914 to November 1918.

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

• He was a strong believer in the naval abilities of Britain and France holding the view that they will ultimately be victorious in WW1. As famously quoted by Winston Churchill in his 1942 speech in London “The late Mr. Venizelos observed that in all her wars England—he should have said Britain, of course—always wins one battle—the last”. 

• He believed that the survival and growth of Greece was inextricably linked with it being allied with the "sea-keeping powers". He maintained that if Greece had become Germany's ally, it would have seen the coastal cities, its shipping and its capital destroyed. 

• That Greece should take advantage of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire siding with Germany since this will result in Great Britain and France supporting Greece’s claims in Macedonia, Ipeiros and Minor Asia allowing for the liberation of millions of Greeks and annexation of historical Greek territories.

• He was a centrist liberal democrat that opposed dictatorial regimes and was an ardent believer that the place of Greece was on the side of the Western parliamentary democracies. Venizelos was the architect of Greece’s accession to the Western world stating, “Greece must take part in the struggle of free Europe against a barbaric, totalitarian militarism that will cause the destruction of both Greece and the whole of Europe”. 

It should be noted that on October 1915 Britain offered Cyprus to Greece on the condition that Greece entered the war against Germany. Venizelos was not in government and King Constantine refused the offer which later lapsed and was never repeated. The ramifications of such refusal are still witnessed today. 

Bulgarian invasion and Greek army surrender 

In October 1915 Bulgaria entered WW1 on the side of Germany following in the footsteps of the Ottoman Empire which entered the war on the side of Germany in October 1915. In the spring of 1916 Bulgaria advanced and recaptured certain parts of Greek held Macedonia causing many atrocities to the Greek inhabitants. In order to remain “neutral” and maintain Germany happy the Greek royalist government had ordered the Greek army to retreat and provide no resistance to any foreign army. In 26 May 1916, without offering any resistance, the Rupel fortress was surrendered by Ioannis Metaxas and King Constantine to the Bulgarians.                                                                                                                                             

Greek IV Corps marching in Gorlitz

Similarly, in one of the darkest pages of Greek military history approximately 464 officers and 6373 soldiers of the Greek Army IV Corps stationed in Kavala were ordered by King Constantine to avoid confrontation with the Bulgarian army. The army fled and on their request, were transported to the German city of Gorlitz where they remained until WW1 ended. Kavala was occupied by Bulgarian forces for approximately two years. It has been reported that during this two-year period 42,000 Greeks were taken to prison camps in Bulgaria of which 12,000 died. 

National Schism and the creation of two Greek governments 

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

Triumph and Paris Peace Conference 

Greek military units in the World War I
Victory Parade  in Arc de Triomphe, Paris. July 1919

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

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

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

Minor Asia – Treaty of Sèvres

The Paris Peace Conference resulted in the victorious nations of WW1 and the Ottoman Empire executing the Treaty of Sèvres on 28 July 1920. This Treaty provided that: 

• Smyrna, Aivali and surrounding areas would be under Greek military control and administration; a local parliament would be created; a referendum was to be held after five years to vote on whether the majority of Smyrna's citizens wished to join Greece or remain in the Ottoman Empire; and the referendum would be overseen by the League of Nations; and

• Greece was provided with Eastern Thrace (just outside Constantinople), the islands of Imvros and Tenedos and the islands of the Sea of Marmara; and 

• Constantinople and the surrounding seas whilst technically remaining under Ottoman sovereignty were internationalised and brought under the control of an international commission. Article 36 of the Treaty provided that if Turkey breached any terms of the Treaty then the parties to the Treaty (including Greece) expressly reserved the right to modify the provisions relating to Constantinople and the surrounding seas – potentially leading to future Greek annexation of the area. 

Finally, Greece reached a separate agreement with Italy (the “Venizelos–Tittoni agreement”) that ceded the Dodecanese islands to Greece. However, after much protest by Italy Greece was not permitted to annex Northern Ipeiros. 

1920 Electoral Defeat 

When Venizelos first came to power the borders of Greece
were those depicted in the various forms of blue (up to Thessaly).
Upon his electoral defeat in 1920 Venizelos had increased the Greek
borders to those as shown in all other colours.  

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

Minor Asia Catastrophe 

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

The Minor Asia catastrophe

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

Lausanne Treaty – 24 July 1923 

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

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

Venizelos and Kemal Ataturk 

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

Death & Legacy 

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

Assassination attempt 
against Venizelos in Paris 1920

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

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

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

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

Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist


Major Sources

1. "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" Margaret Macmillan; 
2. "Life of Venizelos", S.B Chester;

3."Eleuftherios Venizelos, British Public Opinion and the Climax of Anglo-Hellenism (1915-1920)" Slobodan G. Markovich; 

4. Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statemanship", Paschalis Kitromilides (ed.);

5. Eleftherios Venizelos - The Visionary of the Attainable", Thanos Veremis; 

6 "Eleftherios Venizelos" Nikolaos Papadakis;

7. Eleftherios Venizelos, The Formulation of His Political Thinking", Hellenic Parliament Foundation & National Research Foundation Eleftherios Venizelos;

8. "Venizelos in the Revolution and in Politics", Georgios Panagiotakis; 

9."Eleftherios Venizelos: The man, the leader" Nikolaos Papadakis; and

10. "The Great Greeks: Eleftherios Venizelos", Skai Vivlio.

Turkish invasion of Syria is a breach of International Law

Turkish invasion of Syria constitutes a breach of international law and the UN Charter. It reflects a grand new strategy that articulates a vision of Turkey as a unipolar state entitled to operate above the confines of international law and international institutions to further its national interest. It introduces in international law the “safe zone” concept as a unilateral right to invade without the need to show grounds of “self-defence”. It provides a dangerous precedent that inevitably risks undermining global peace and security whilst questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law.

Background 

A few days ago, Turkish President Erdogan announced to the world that Turkey was unilaterally beginning “Operation Peace Spring” - an assault on Syrian-Kurds living in northeastern Syria. He further announced that the operation also aimed to establish a “safe zone”, facilitating the return of million Syrian refugees to their country. Turkish troops have now invaded Syria and bombed Kurds living in the north-east region. It has been reported that within 48 hours hundreds of people have died and 64,000.00 people have been forced to leave their homes - this number is expected to soon rise to 300,000.00. 

In effect what Turkey is really trying to do is to contain Syrian-Kurdish power. It wishes to quash any future possibility that a Kurdish state may be created. By creating a space inside Syria, where millions of Syrian refugees currently hosted in Turkey can be settled (disposing of the existing Kurds), it creates a buffer zone that serves its perceived national interest. 

United Nations Charter 

Pursuant to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. The UN Charter makes it clear that the use of military force in the territory of a sovereign state without its consent is permissible only under at least one of two conditions: 

• By unanimous approval of the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII whereby the Security Council should authorize what action should be taken to restore peace and security; and 

• Pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Amongst other this Article states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” 

To date the UN Security Council has not authorized any invasion of use of force. 

Self Defence? 

Turkey has defended it invasion pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It maintains that there is a presence of what it views as a “terrorist organization,” and maintains that pursuant to Article 51 it has the right to invade and create a “safe zone” or “peace corridor” along its border. 

Such defence is absent of any legal merit. Firstly, the people Turkey refers to as a Terrorist organization are the same Syrian-Kurdish fighters who are US allies and instrumental in delivering recent victory against ISIS. Indeed only a few days ago US President Trump referred to them as “special people and wonderful fighters”. Secondly, Turkey has not provided any evidence to the Security Council of any existing or imminent attack. Indeed, no armed attack against Turkey has taken place, has been threatened or is imminent or may reasonably be deemed imminent and arising from Syrian-Kurds. 

Turkey is attempting to re-write international law and create a new “safe zone” doctrine that grants it a “right to invade”. This concept means self-defense is no-longer a necessary pretext. To accept Turkish claims means to accept that, without any evidence whatsoever, any country may claim that a terrorist organization exists in another country and as such: 

• claim a legal right to invade such other country;

• create a “safe zone” along the border; 

• amend borders and re-populate this zone with millions of refugees from other areas thus completely altering the demographic composition of an occupied territory. 

The above are not permitted under international law. Turkish invasion of Syria is illegal, and the international community must immediately act to stop it.

By Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist

Friday, 11 October 2019

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