Athens
, 30 March 2009
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Good morning. Foreign Minister Ms. Dora Bakoyannis received the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to Athens at the Foreign Ministry today, at 10:30.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, 31 March, Ms. Bakoyannis will travel to The Hague to participate in the proceedings of the International Conference on Afghanistan. The Conference will look at political and development issues in the region, as well as at security issues. The UN Secretary General, the Afghan President, Foreign Ministers and officials of Organizations active in the reconstruction of Afghanistan will participate in the Conference.
On Wednesday, 1 April, at 11:00, the Foreign Minister will hold a press conference at the Foreign Ministry – Seferis Hall – on the “Athos and the Byzantine Empire – Treasures of the Holy Mountain” exhibit. The exhibit will open on 9 April, in Paris, and will last through 5 July. It is a 181-piece exhibit being presented for the first time outside Greece, and 60 of these items have never before been exhibited outside Mount Athos. Later on the same day – at 12:00 – she will receive the new UK Ambassador Mr. Landsman in a formal visit, and at 13:00 she will receive the new Russian Ambassador, Mr. Chkhikvishvili.
On Thursday, 2 April, at 10:00, Ms. Bakoyannis will deliver a welcome speech at the 1st UN Development Programme Business Conference, which is being organized by the Foreign Ministry – specifically, the Special Secretariat for the Development of International Programmes – on “Opportunities for business activities in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States”.
On Friday, 3 April, at 10:00, Ms. Bakoyannis will meet at the Foreign Ministry with her Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Selso Amorim – afterwards they will make statements to the media. On the evening of the same day, she will travel to Strasbourg, where, together with the Defense Minister, she will accompany Prime Minister Karamanlis at the proceedings of the NATO Summit that will take place in Strasbourg, France, and in Kehl, in Germany.
The meeting of the North Atlantic Council will take place on Saturday, 4 April, in Strasbourg, and the meeting will be followed by press conferences.
The agenda for this anniversary Meeting – 60 years since the founding of the Alliance – will include the declaration on allied security, relations with Russia and the situation in Afghanistan.
On Saturday evening, Ms. Bakoyannis will depart Strasbourg for Prague, accompanying the Prime Minister to the EU-U.S. Summit Meeting scheduled for Sunday, 5 April.
This Meeting will look mainly at issues concerning the international financial crisis, climate change and regional issues such as Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Following the proceedings of this Meeting, Ms. Bakoyannis will travel to Istanbul to participate in the 2nd annual Alliance of Civilizations Forum, which is taking place there on 6 and 7 April.
Regarding Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Varvitsiotis programme, as we speak he is participating in the 14th meeting of the National Council of Exporters, which is on the theme of the “Extroversion of the Greek Economy”. At 12:00 today he will address an event being hosted by the British Embassy on “The world economic crisis: global and local responses”.
Finally, on Thursday and Friday, 2 and 3 April, the Deputy Minister will carry out a working visit to Bucharest.
That’s it for announcements. Your questions, please.
Mr. Papathanasiou: There is a lot of discussion and backstage chatter regarding the U.S. President’s visit to Turkey and whether he will meet with Patriarch Bartholomew. Has the Foreign Ministry taken any action regarding the possibility of a meeting between the U.S. President and Patriarch Bartholomew?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Let me start by saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians throughout the world. His institutional role, his international standing and influence is far-reaching and well known to everyone.
The same holds true for the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Respect for and recognition of the unhindered carrying out of its mission are issues of major importance – issues of respect for and protection of religious freedoms.
As you can see, these issues are not bilateral Greek-Turkish issues. They are issues of much broader reach.
It is also well known that these issues concern the European Union and for this reason are of direct relevance to the course and progress of Turkey’s accession negotiations. Moreover, the U.S. shows similar interest in respect for and protection of the principle of religious freedom.
Finally, it is obvious that there is also great interest in the Patriarchate’s issues in Greece – also as a member state of the European Union. In that sense, the Foreign Ministry and the Foreign Minister raise issues concerning the Patriarchate – as well as the related issue of the Halki Seminary – at every opportunity and with all collocutors.
This is a stance that has been maintained and will continue to be maintained and implemented as long as the problems and related issues facing the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Ecumenical Patriarch, persist.
Mr. Viketos: It was leaked by the American side 20 or more days ago that Mr. Obama was planning to go to the Ecumenical Patriarch at the Phanar. Now there is information that says he will not go, but may meet him at his hotel, together with other religious leaders.
So the way you have put it regarding Patriarch Bartholomew’s role, won’t it be downgraded by President Obama if he invites him along with others?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I think I stated the Greek view very clearly – and the broader view – regarding the institution, role and mission of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Beyond that, this is also indicative of how Greece confronts every development, every event either directly or indirectly related to his role and position.
Regarding this particular matter, I do not intend to enter into a discussion of a programme that has not been officially announced or confirmed. There are only the relevant news items, and in any case any development related to this will be handled by the Greek side from the perspective that I set out for you.
Mr. Meletis: Regarding this, Mr. Spokesman, I would like the Greek government’s comment on everything apparently passed on by Ms. Clinton to Archbishop Dimitrios, according to which the re-opening of the Halki Seminary is linked with moves that have to be made in Thrace. Here, we are witnessing Ms. Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, passing on Turkish arguments – unaltered – to representatives of the Greek expatriate community.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I am not in a position to know if that was really said and whether there really was an attempt to link these unrelated issued by the U.S. Secretary of State. So I cannot confirm it, because I do not have the relevant information – your information.
What I think is important to stress is that the Thrace issues – Muslim minority issues – and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are not linked and are not interrelated. And we have to make it clear that there is no issue of reciprocity in the respect and implementation of policies for the protection of human rights.
There is no such reciprocity issue in our time. And there is no such issue for the simple reason that it is the duty of democratic states to respect all rights and to implement the relevant policies.
You know that Greece does this. Turkey falls short.
Specifically regarding the Muslim minority of Thrace, we are implementing and deepening the policy of equal rights and equality before the law, with respect for the relevant principles and provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne.
Turkey, for its part – not, as I said, due to any reciprocity or interrelations or counterbalancing – should do the same with regard to its own issues.
More specifically with regard to the Muslim minority of Thrace, I think it is worth stressing that over the past 20 years, the Greek state, in parallel with the obligations arising from the Treaty of Lausanne, as well as the provisions of international and European law regarding the protection of human and minority rights, has taken many additional steps in favour of the minority.
Whether through positive measures – like the 0.5% quota for entry into tertiary education and hiring in the public sector – or indirectly, through broader national programmes, co-financed by the European Union, etc. For example, regarding gender equality, equal employment opportunities and the intercultural dialogue. That is, programmes and policies designed for vulnerable social groups, like the Roma.
So there is a triptych in Greek policy, and it is a policy that Greece implements as a European, democratic country – not based on reciprocity. Because it is the concern of every democratic state to pursue the constant improvement of the quality of life and the rights of its citizens.
Mr. Meletis: Mr. Spokesman, your answer was quite complete. I just wanted to ask whether special mention was made of the historic Halki Seminary in Ms. Bakoyannis’ meetings in the United States. As far as you know, of course.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: By the American side?
Mr. Meletis: By the American side. Or do we simply see that if this has happened, it has happened following Ms. Clinton’s visit to Turkey?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The meeting that took place with the U.S. Secretary of State was a meeting for the presentation of Greece’s positions, views and concerns regarding issues of particular interest to Greece – but of course views were exchanged regarding Turkey’s European course.
Within this framework, the Greek side raised this as well. There was no reply at that meeting that is related to these issues.
Mr. Papathanasiou: Is a meeting with Mr. Babacan scheduled to take place during the Minister’s visit to Istanbul? And if so, what is on the agenda?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: At this time, all of the bilateral meetings that might take place on the margins of this meeting have not been determined. When they are finalized, we will let you know.
Mr. Athanasopoulos: Could you perhaps tell us: First, to what extent the information regarding the Minister’s meeting with Ms. Clinton on the margins of the Afghanistan Conference is reliable. And if so, what is on the agenda for this meeting?
Second – as you referred to Thrace and all of these policies that we are supposedly implementing. Do you have a comment …
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Not supposedly. We are implementing them.
Mr. Athansopoulos: That we are implementing. Do you perhaps have a comment on certain information to the effect that with regard to the appointing of imams, this appointment has not moved ahead and the Turkish consulate is capitalizing on this negligence? Thank you.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I’ll start with your last question. All the actions are being taken to implement this specific policy that Greece, the Greek government, is carrying out. If there are delays, this is not an unusual phenomenon. But all of this will move ahead at some point.
With regard to your first question, at this time, there is nothing specific and finalized regarding a possible meeting between the Foreign Minister and Ms. Clinton on the margins of the proceedings of the Conference on Afghanistan.
Mr. Fourlis: Excuse me, but it is our understanding that in the next ten days or week it is almost certain that there will be some meetings with the Turkish and American sides. Does the Greek side have an agenda for these meetings? The Aegean, let’s say. I want to ask specifically whether Greece will raise this issue in the talks that it is almost a mathematical certainty will take place.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Whether it is a “mathematical certainty” is your position. When such meetings are finalized, they will be announced. And at that time the agenda and the issues to be raised by the Greek side will be announced. But in particular regarding the issue of the Aegean – in the sense of Turkish violations and the increase we have seen recently – it will certainly be raised, if and when these meetings take place, of course, because we are speaking hypothetically.
Mr. Fourlis: Just a minute – I’d like to add something on that. Is the Foreign Ministry satisfied with the results of the intervention from Ms. Clinton to the Turkish side regarding the tension in the Aegean?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: In foreign policy, as you know, things take time. The tension in the Aegean and the problems in Greek-Turkish relations due to Turkey’s stance are well known and have been with us for 35 years.
Mr. Fourlis: (off microphone) I’m asking something else. Whether we are happy with the intervention, with the results of the intervention.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Decades-old policies are not reversed and do not change in a month.
Mr. Santamouris: Based on your reply concerning minority issues. Recently, we have seen an increase in expression of solidarity from one side – those referred to as minorities in Greece – with some others in international fora. I would like you to tell me whether, in your opinion, it is solidarity among the oppressed and weak, or something else. That’s one question. The second has to do with something Mr. Speckhard said in his speech in the U.S., when he said that the two items set as conditions for the visa waiver for Greek visitors had been cleared up – the agreements have been completed – and that the third will be cleared up any time now. I’d like something further on that.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Regarding the course of the discussions and consultations regarding Greece’s admission to the tourist visa waiver programme for the United States, that is in fact the picture of how things stand to date. Two of the three basic agreements that make up the overall agreement have been reached. There is a third part that is in progress. At this time I cannot jump ahead and forecast when it will be finalized.
Mr. Santamouris: A clarification on that. Have the Greek objections been overcome regarding the fact that some agreement may differ from the basic Euro-American agreements?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There are various issues under discussion and deliberation at this time. That is precisely why I said I can’t say exactly when the talks will conclude on the third section of the overall agreement.
Now, regarding your first question. Solidarity can only be expressed regarding real issues and real facts, not non-existent ones. I don’t see any basis for using the term “solidarity”.
Mr. Santamouris: And if some internationally recognized institutions back up these issues as existent, what does the Greek government say?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I answered you.
Mr. Kapoutsis: You said a few minutes ago that developments in Afghanistan will be among the issues discussed at the NATO Summit Meeting. U.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his will regarding an increase in U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. We have yesterday’s interview of Jap de Hoop Scheffer, who states that the Europeans must increase their military presence in Afghanistan. There are similar statements from U.S. diplomacy. We can logically conclude from this that at the Summit Meeting Greece will meet with pressure – friendly or not – and hints regarding the military presence in Afghanistan. How is the Greek side planning to handle this issue? Will it maintain its stance that we aren’t sending anything? Are we maintaining our stance or might there be greater flexibility to U.S. pressure?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I remind you that Greece is present in Afghanistan and that its participation in the specific mission, as in other missions, in implementation of the resolutions of the UN Security Council, is decided upon following evaluation of all the parameters, and special weight is always given to the assessment of national security as well.
So, depending on how the discussion goes at this Meeting, Greece will maintain this stance.
Ms. Pelloni: Could you tell us whether the Greek side has requested a meeting with Ms. Clinton at the International Conference. You said that nothing has been finalised yet, but has the Foreign Ministry requested a meeting? That’s the first question. And the second question is whether you could tell us which points – which meetings, that is – on Ms. Bakoyannis' agenda in Istanbul have already been finalized.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Regarding Istanbul, nothing on bilateral meetings has been finalized yet; I have nothing to announce to you. At this stage, I am not going to add anything more. With regard to the meeting with Ms. Clinton, such a meeting has not been slated.
Mr. Papathanassiou: Following the explanations or clarifications that Greece's Ambassador to Berlin requested from the German Chancellor, does Athens have a picture of why Ms. Merkel made these statements? Is there a change in Berlin's policy?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I am not aware of the reasons, nor is there I believe any use in making conjectures about the possible reasons underlying this statement. What is of major political importance is that there is a unanimous decision on the part of the Alliance last April, which mentions that this particular country cannot be invited to join NATO without prior resolution of the name issue. This is a unanimous decision taken by all the NATO member states with no exceptions.
Ms. Voudouri: My first question is: will the Greek side answer the letter of FYROM’s Foreign Minister Mr. Antonio Milososki? And the second question is: what are the results of the Minister’s visit in the capacity of OSCE CiO to Georgia? And how is the Greek proposal moving towards a resolution of the crisis there?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Yes, there was a letter by the Foreign Minister replying to Mr. Milososki’s letter, which was sent about 10 days ago. The Minister’s letter was delivered as a note verbale on 27 March to the Foreign Ministry of FYROM.
As a matter of principle, since we had made public certain parts of the Milososki letter, I will give you some of the points of the Minister's detailed reply.
One point in this letter is that the Foreign Minister stresses that, all these years, Greece has been pursuing and adhering to good neighbourly relations with sincere will, in deeds and not just in words, and it has been making efforts towards finding a solution on the name issue.
Another point mentioned in the Minister’s letter to her counterpart is that what is needed are deeds rather than words, as words are mostly aimed at creating impressions; specific actions are needed towards resolving the name issue that is at the heart of our relations and the problems that we are facing.
With regard to various proposals about committees, the Minister makes it clear that history is well known and it cannot be the subject of any negotiations or committees.
On the issue of a committee on improving the prevailing climate and developing bilateral relations, Ms. Bakoyannis stresses that all this can be ensured through tangible respect for fundamental principles, good neighbourly relations, and anything that is governed by provisions on bilateral relations and articles of the Interim Accord.
These are, in brief, the main points of the Minister’s extensive reply, a letter of about four pages.
Journalist: (off microphone)
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I told you I will give you the letter's basic, fundamental points.
To sum up once again: Greece has always applied a policy of good bilateral relations, good neighbourly relations. Beyond that, it has been making ongoing efforts to resolve the name issue, which is a key issue. What is needed is specific actions and policies, and not words and efforts to score superficial points. The letter reiterated the Greek positions on the manner in which the name issue can be resolved, on what the Greek stance is.
Mr. Meletis: Which is what exactly?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The one you know full well. An erga omnes compound name with a geographical qualifier.
With regard to more specific references in the Milososki letter, we have taken a clear position that history is well known and that it cannot become the subject of either consultations or negotiations, and also that bilateral relations, a good climate reigning over them and their positive course can be fully and easily safeguarded through respect for fundamental principles, good neighbourly relations and all of the Interim Accord's provisions.
Ms. Karaviti: I would like your comment on Mr. Gordon’s statements at the Confirmation Hearing before the Senate.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I have no other statements apart from referring you to the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. There is an occupation on Cyprus, and the international community recognised one single government, the government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Mr. Viketos: With regard to Mr. Gordon, have you perhaps sensed a change in Mr. Barroso’s stance in the statements he made last week on the Cyprus issue and Turkey's European course following his meeting with Mr. Gul? And also – given that Greece’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is monitoring this issue of a possible meeting between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Talat – I would like to ask whether you are aware of discussions in Nicosia these days about the U.S. contemplating two separate meetings of Ms. Clinton with Mr. Markos Kyprianou and Mr. Talat in Istanbul.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I’m not aware of the last point, the information is unclear. There is a major ongoing effort to resolve the Cyprus issue and every move must serve and not undermine this objective and this procedure’s purpose, i.e., reaching a solution. And a solution can only be found on the basis of respect for specific principles, specific rules of international law and UN Security Council resolutions. Let me once again remind you that there is only one internationally recognised government on this island: The government of the Republic of Cyprus.
With regard to the issue of Mr. Barroso’s statements, I am not going to assess that. The given fact in any case is that the decisions of the European Council provide for very specific things with regard to Turkey’s obligations vis-a-vis all the member states, and of course the Republic of Cyprus.
Let me also remind you of the need for implementing the Protocol on the Customs Union without exceptions, vis-a-vis all the member states, and of course to normalise relations between Turkey – as a candidate country – and an EU member state, the Republic of Cyprus.
Mr. Santamouris: Mr. Spokesman, I would like to come back to the FYROM issue. You stated earlier that the name issue is at the heart of problems between Athens and Skopje. The question is what are these problems apart from the name issue? Secondly, you made a link between the spirit of the Milososki letter and the validity of the Interim Accord. Do you think that the mindset behind Skopje’s policy is practically and institutionally violating the Interim Accord? And a third question: in the same speech at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, Mr. Speckhard stated that the United States could intervene only following a request by Athens and Skopje. Could this happen?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: This is Mr. Speckhard’s view. I will not comment on it.
With regard to the name issue, it is certain that the pending name issue, in conjunction with the handlings and policy of Skopje’s incumbent government – that is, its extreme stances, fanatical positions, and intolerant views – are having a negative impact on the relations of the two countries not just on regional cooperation but, most of all, on the neighbouring country’s European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Given all this, resolving the name issue will be a catalyst for positive changes. This is the meaning of what I said earlier.
My second question relates to illegal immigration. Many actions in recent years on the part of Skopje transgress and infringe the spirit of specific provisions of the Interim Accord.
Mr. Athanassopoulos: On the same matter. You said earlier that the pending name issue and nationalist positions are obstructing the Euro-Atlantic course of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The first statements in the opposite direction have come from Ms. Merkel and also a report has been issued by the European Parliament that is probably moving in the opposite direction from what you're saying. Is the Greek side satisfied with its strategy with regard to the Skopje issue? That is my first question. Secondly, is there a specific reason why we are told with almost a week’s delay about the Minister’s reply to the Skopje Foreign Minister? Because I guess, if we hadn't asked, we wouldn't have found out. Thank you.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: But I've already answered that. With regard to the first question, *
[* It should be noted that 24 March is the date on which the letter was signed. It was delivered on 27 March through a note verbale].
The Greek government is convinced of the pertinence of the policy it follows, because it is a policy combining constructive spirit, willingness to find a solution and strong determination.
Now, these particular developments that you mentioned do not change the facts. The given fact is that negotiations under UN auspices are ongoing in order to find a mutually acceptable solution, and beyond that, Greece’s position is well known. So, a solution is needed in this context. The second point is the unanimous decisions at both European and NATO level. These are the three facts, within which Greece’s policy is moving, and as I told you it is the appropriate policy, because it combines constructive spirit and determination where needed.
Mr. Fourlis: I would like to change the subject. I want to ask whether in the light of the surrounding atmosphere and latest developments in Greek-U.S. relations as well as individual statements of greater or lesser significance – depending on how one sees it – regarding the Cyprus issue, matters that concern the Patriarchate, Mr. Obama’s programme in Turkey, etc., whether there was any specific reasoning behind the Greek side’s choice of the Justice Minister as its representative to the 25 March celebrations at the White House. Why wasn’t it considered appropriate for a Foreign Ministry official, for example, to represent Greece? This would be more logical given that they would be more competent on this particular area, at least as far as I can understand. Whether, despite all that, the Greek government and, most of all, the Foreign Ministry as the competent Ministry I would say, does not think it appropriate to pursue any kind of meeting or contact with Mr. Obama in the following days.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I will start with the first point. The Greek state was represented at this particular event honouring Greece, at this annual celebration at the White House. Do not look for semiotics in everything that is happening. The Greek state was represented at the event and the Greek Foreign Ministry is always there through its accredited Ambassador to the U.S. It is not advisable and it could sometimes be twisting things to look for deeper meanings everywhere. Most often, decisions made by state governments are simpler than their subsequent interpretations.
With regard to the meetings, I have nothing to say at the moment. Besides, I would not be competent to announce anything on meetings to be held between heads of state and government.
Mr. Meletis: I assume that a week following Ms. Clinton’s meeting with the Archbishop, our Ambassador to Washington will have tried to see what happened at this meeting and that you will also be briefed. You will be briefed in a week, ten days. If it comes out that Ms. Clinton has indeed raised and linked the issue of Thrace with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Halki, Will there be a reaction on the part of Greece vis-a-vis the Americans? Or does your statement today stand as a reaction?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: If indeed they are confirmed – this is indeed a hypothetical question – the necessary moves will be made within the framework of the answer given today. This is Greece’s perspective and it is based on this that the relevant actions are always made.
Ms. Voudouri: How is the Greek Chairmanship’s proposal on the OSCE Mission in Georgia moving forward? Isn’t it worrying that a second country, namely Belarus, is going to recognise South Ossetia’s independence?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The situation in the region is complicated and difficult. Yesterday, there was an incident with an attack against a police car in a region near the administrative boundary with South Ossetia, which goes to confirm that there is an extremely fragile and unstable balance in the region. This atmosphere is hindering a convergence of views between the parties that are directly involved, with a view to resolving the issue of mandate renewal and the OSCE Mission’s remaining in Georgia. Nevertheless, the Greek Chairmanship is working tirelessly, looking for a common denominator in order to achieve a solution and for the OSCE Mission to remain in the region.
This mission – as seen in the latest events that I mentioned earlier – is absolutely essential and it is considered advisable and useful. We will keep up these efforts, because the Greek Chairmanship believes it is very important for the OSCE Mission to remain there. Our efforts are based on the reasoning that any solution must not cross or violate the parties’ red lines.
Our goal is to not politicize the mission’s mandate renewal and to highlight the technical characteristics of how we will be able to achieve the abovementioned compromise and convergence of views.
Mr. Santamouris: Speaking of red lines. The leadership of Kosovo is seeking the withdrawal of the UN Administration Mission. What is Greece’s view as a country that takes part in this peacekeeping mission?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The premise of our stance on such an issue lies in the fact that Greece has not recognised Kosovo's independence. Moreover, Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council is still in force. Nevertheless, I refrain from giving you a more specific answer.
Thank you.