Athens , 8 December 2009

Mr. Droutsas: As you know, the main issues that concerned us in particular were enlargement issues, principally as regards FYROM and the conclusions on Turkey.

I would like to start by saying that the government, from the day it took on the country’s foreign policy, has done everything in its power to reverse the image of a Greece with limited horizons.

We took initiatives, as you know, with added value and multiple benefits for our country’s negotiating position.

In particular, we embarked on close cooperation and ongoing coordination – and I want to stress this – and joint action with the government of the Republic of Cyprus on all levels so that we could make up for lost time. But let me also say that the building of our country’s international image and the creation of political capital cannot be done from one day to the next. It requires time and considerable effort.

I think that today we turned things around. We managed under unfavourable conditions and at a time when the EU Presidency is being held by country that, I can say without hesitation – this is well known – has views that are radically different from ours. In this environment, we succeeded in shaping the environment and the framework of the negotiations. We chose the direction and our partners heard constructive words from Greece and realised that our positions, Greece’s positions and concerns, are well founded.

I want to underscore that our objections to the somewhat overly optimistic outlook of the Presidency are aimed at protecting the credibility and interests of the European Union itself. The European Union, too, has an image that it must safeguard in the international community.

We argued that the European Union must have dignity and that its word must be credible to third countries. I think that through our positions we can only defend this credibility of the European Union.

With regard to FYROM’s accession course, our position is clear and is well known to everyone. It was clear and well known to everyone from the very outset. And it was precisely this position that we presented to the council. And I dare say it met with great support from our partners. But I think that this is due to the intensive efforts and intensive groundwork we carried out with our constant meetings and contacts with many of our partners on all levels.

For FYROM to begin accession negotiations, we must first have reached – and this is well known; we have stressed this – a solution on the name issue. And this position is not negotiable or a matter of political assessment. This is the reality of the situation. We all know this. Greece will play a leading role in FYROM’s accession process. We have stressed this. We say and mean that we can and want to be the ones who shoulder the issue of Skopje’s accession course and bring the country into Europe, the European Union. But Skopje will also have to take its responsibilities in this matter and take the necessary steps; the steps needed for the resolution of the name issue.

The Presidency presented and supported – with great persistence, I would say – the view that the Council should re-examine this issue this coming March – in March 2010 – with the goal, in fact, of setting a date for the opening of accession negotiations. This was the persistent position of the Presidency. This was its proposal. This position, as you can see, does not tally with reality or the real state of affairs, and it certainly is not in line with Greece’s clear position, which we expressed from the very outset.

Greece’s position is a position of values:  that the conclusions must precisely reflect the reality of the situation. And I can say that many of our partners supported this position with their input. And in the end, this is the position set out in the conclusions, and that is why I think that we have every reason to be satisfied. The important thing is that the Council notes the proposal of the Commission for the opening of accession negotiations, but says that we will come back to the issue within the framework of the next Presidency. There is no link whatsoever with the issue of the opening of accession negotiations with Skopje; that is, that here at the council a date was set for the opening of accession negotiations. I stress that this was the Presidency’s proposal, and it is precisely this that we were able to avert.

Second, the Council stresses that the maintaining of good neighbourly relations remains necessary and essential, including the finding – based on negotiations – of a mutually acceptable solution with regard to the name issue, within the framework of the UN negotiations. And I think this shows the reality that I talked about: that there is no question of accession negotiations opening with FYROM before a solution is achieved on the name issue.

But I want to underscore something else, as well. Greece’s effort was aimed at, and will be aimed at, sending a positive message to Skopje. But of course we mustn’t confuse positive messages with tangible results. I remind you that because of a Greek initiative, there is a new momentum, I would say, in the relations of the two countries. A momentum that we, at least, desire; a positive momentum. We are waiting for Skopje to respond positively in kind, in a constructive manner, and we think that this momentum can lend fresh impetus to the negotiations under the auspices of the UN.

But again, I stress that Skopje must take specific steps and must reach a solution on the name issue before accession negotiations can begin.

With regard to Turkey, the negotiations were equally long and tough. I want to stress – as Mr. Kyprianou and I said in our joint statements – the close, virtually daily, cooperation with the Cypriot government on this issue, our full coordination, with a common line to the end. And, as I said earlier, this common line, this full coordination, this close cooperation, gave substantial weight to our common voice in this process, in these negotiations, which really weren’t easy.

It is an important result that the Council Conclusions on Turkey have improved substantially and very significantly. Allow me to point out to you the main areas that we consider particularly satisfactory and of considerable importance to us.

First of all, there was an effort on the part of the Presidency, in its proposal, for there to be mention of so-called bilateral disputes and their impact on the accession process. In other words, the Presidency proposes that bilateral differences should not be an obstacle to the accession negotiations, to the accession process of a candidate state. As you can see, Greece cannot accept this, and I think that the first and major success of the negotiations was that this proposal was stricken completely. There is no mention whatsoever of this matter in the Conclusions.

Second, there is express reference to the need for Turkey to comply fully with the Copenhagen criteria, particularly in sectors such as religious freedoms, minority rights and property rights. As you can see, this is of particular importance to Greece, due to the issue of the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

There is express reference to the fact that the satisfactory implementation of the bilateral readmission agreements that Turkey has concluded with member states remains a priority ahead of the reopening of negotiations for the conclusion of similar agreements with the EU. That is, express reference to the major issue of illegal migration, with is particularly important for Greece: that Turkey must honor and fully implement the bilateral readmission agreement it signed with Greece in 2001.

Moreover, the Council requests that Turkey commit itself unconditionally to good neighbourly relations and the peaceful resolution of disputes, in accordance with the UN Charter, including recourse to the International Court in The Hague, and that Turkey avoid any threat, source of friction or action that might undermine good neighbourly relations or the peaceful resolution of disputes. This is an issue that fully covers our needs – covers our interests – and I want to stress that this reference was not provided for in the Presidency’s proposal. It was added following pressure brought to bear by Greece in its intervention.

The next matter of particular importance is that for the first time in the Council Conclusions, the Union stresses the sovereign rights of all member states, including in the conclusion of bilateral agreements based on the European acquis and international law. And – of particular importance to us – including the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I think that we can all see the particular importance of this reference and the addition.

There is also very strong wording regarding the obligations – we are talking about the Conclusions – of Turkey within the framework of the negotiations on the Cyprus issue. This wording has been strengthened considerably, and Turkey is now called upon to contribute actively to the resolution of the Cyprus issue within the framework of the UN and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the principles upon which the Union is founded.

Finally, the Council expresses its deep regret at the fact that Turkey, despite repeated calls, continues refusing – and this is the word used in the Conclusions – to fulfil its obligation of full non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol.

It reaffirms that the Council will maintain its measures from 2006, which will have a continuous effect on the overall progress in the negotiations, and invites the Commission to monitor closely and specifically report on all issues covered by the declaration of the European Community and its Member States of 21 September 2005 in its forthcoming annual report. And this will be done in a separate chapter in the report, which will look at Turkey’s compliance with these obligations. And I am referring here not only to the obligation to implement the Ankara Protocol – that is, the opening of Turkey’s ports and airports – but also to the obligation to normalize its relations with all of its neighbours. With regard to the Republic of Cyprus, this of course entails the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus – Turkey’s obligation to do this – as well as the matter of Turkey’s not hindering the Republic of Cyprus’s accession to international organizations.

These are, in brief, the most important results of the Conclusions with regard to Turkey, and as I said earlier, I think the issues of particular importance to Greece have been included in a very clear and substantial manner. Thank you.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, Turkey is to be evaluated at this Council on the issue of the customs union. Can you tell us – as this was the main goal of the Cypriots, and ours, as well, I think – what happened on this issue?

Mr. Droutsas: As I said, the Council concluded that Turkey, despite repeated calls, continues to refuse. So it says this in a very clear manner, and as Mr. Kyprianou stated in the Council, this means, of course, that there is the right of every member state, unilaterally, to proceed to certain sanctions; that is, to take measures within the framework of Turkey’s accession negotiations. And this statement was fully supported by Greece, of course.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, excuse me. A clarification. Is it a written statement, or verbally in the Council?

Mr. Droutsas: These are made verbally in the Council, but they go into the Council minutes.

Journalist: Will they take measures, as you said?

Mr. Droutsas: There is nothing blocking the right of each member state to take the measures it considers necessary in the further process of the accession negotiations, and he was referring to specific chapters that bear directly on issues that concern Cyprus, but on Greece, as well, of course.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, as things stand today, with the agreement concluded three years ago, it is clear that at some point the negotiations with Turkey will freeze if Turkey does not recognize Cyprus – not at the end, at some point. Do you think we should bring this point in time further forward?

Mr. Droutsas: I don’t think this is the right time for us to carry out such assessments. We have said – as Cyprus, too, has stressed – that Turkey’s accession course is in our interest if we handle it right. So the effort is certainly going in that direction: for Turkey’s accession course to continue, but in the right manner. That is, for Turkey to meet all the obligations it has undertaken as a candidate for accession to the EU. Once again, Turkey’s accession course and our support for it has never been and does not mean a blank cheque from our side. And I think that this was set down today in the Council conclusions in a very clear manner.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, on the FYROM issue. You said  that the name issue comes first, and then the opening of accession negotiations. Is that in the conclusions, or not?

Mr. Droutsas: I think this is a reality and a political reality that we are all aware of and that I think is apparent from today’s conclusions with regard to Skopje.

Journalist: But it is not set as a precondition.

Mr. Droutsas: Look, we aren’t going to be the ones who read a given text in a given way in which others want it read. It is clear. It is a political reality. It is a position that Greece expressed from the very outset: that there is no question of accession negotiations opening with Skopje without the prior resolution of the name issue. This is a reality that has been made absolutely clear to all of the partners and that was supported by many partners in their statements.

Journalist: Mr. Minister, in his statements, Mr. Erdogan said that in his talks with the Greek Prime Minister, he discussed minorities. What do you have to say on that?

Mr. Droutsas: I will say once again what we have said repeatedly and every time this is said by Turkey or any Turkish official: that this government does not discuss Muslim minority – that is, Greek citizen – issues. Turkey can say whatever it wants, whatever it thinks concerns it or serves its interests. We are forthright on this, and I stress once again that we do not discuss such issues. Let’s finish on that issue, please.

Journalist: All this here is the conclusions of the present Council?

Mr. Droutsas: Yes.

Journalist: At the European Council the day after tomorrow, will these be raised again in any way? Is there some kind of agreement on how the conclusions will be formulated at the summit meeting?

Mr. Droutsas: The conclusions have been finalized. That is, there is no longer any reason for the European Council to address these conclusions. I don’t know the intentions of the Presidency – whether it wants to mention today’s conclusions of the Council of Foreign Ministers in the Conclusions of the European Council. We have to see what the Presidency’s intentions are. In any case, let me stress that the matter was closed today, and I think it was closed in the best possible manner for Greece and Greece’s interests.

Journalist: Do you think it is out of the question, Minister? At the Council, a political discussion.

Mr. Droutsas: There is no provision for a discussion of this issue. I think it is good that it was wrapped up today, with the difficulties that existed. Now, let me talk to you for a few more minutes about how things played out in the wings. You know who holds the Presidency. You know what its positions are, particularly on the issues that interest and directly concern Greece. You are all well aware of these issues.