G. GERAPETRITIS: I would like to say that times are very challenging. A person that I admire once wrote in his work, “The world in conflict”, that violence is everywhere in our lives. And indeed, it is. The problem is that the situation is getting worse and worse, because there is not a single challenge that is only limited to a specific spectrum or to a specific country. You see what is happening with aggression. Aggression is not a regional issue. Aggression affects the whole world. What happens in Syria or in Libya or in Ukraine essentially has a direct and automatic spill-over effect. The same happens, for example, with the climate crisis, the same happens with food security issues, the same happens now with artificial intelligence. Everything has a domino effect.
In this broader context, I think the major problem is that we have lost part of our deliberative attitude. We are not deliberative enough. We cannot just say that we are sitting around the table and we discuss on rational terms in order to achieve consensus. The post-war idea that we can reach consensus has deteriorated. Once you are at the Foreign Affairs Council, you can see what I mean, because we can never achieve unanimity. But just recollect what was the situation after World War II. You just see that the idea of winners and those defeated sitting at a table and deciding about the future of Europe - and eventually deciding to form a Community, and then a Union - is something amazing. It happened under very adverse circumstances, and it is not happening today.
JOURNALIST: You mean that the EU really did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in a way that perhaps Donald Trump may or may not in the future?
G. GERAPETRITIS: The truth is that at this moment, multilateralism is losing. Unilateralism is winning. This is not good for humanity. I am so delighted and thrilled that Annalena Baerbock is taking a position as the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Why? Because we need to reactivate, to revisit the basics of multilateralism. Because unless we have a very strong system of international security architecture, a system of international law applying worldwide and applying without any cherry-picking, there is no way that we are going to find, again, a rule-based policy. Now, I think that we are missing our vision and our strategy. There is an immense implementation and projection of power as opposed to principles. I think this is something we need to reset. This is why I think Annalena is the most appropriate person to do this. I do not envy her. I was thinking that probably being Foreign Minister under these circumstances was the worst job, but there is an even worse job, which is what Annalena is taking on. I think we should just try to be deliberative and multilateral in our approach. I am a very pro-European type of Foreign Minister, the same as Annalena. To be totally honest, I think that this is the moment for Europe to stand up and say that we are here, we are credible interlocutors, we can talk to everyone, we are very reliable, we have a culture that is very strong. And in spite of our differences, we can be, I think, a strong pillar.
Since you mentioned the United States. In spite of our differences, I think we cannot abstain from the transatlantic relationship. I think it is absolutely essential for the balance of the world. It is absolutely essential for the international security architecture. It was based in the early '50s. The transatlantic cooperation was the fundamental of peace and prosperity in the world. I think we should work on this, and I think we should go hand in hand. And we have to work on a multilateral and balanced way.
MODERATOR: One of the things that Mario Draghi mentioned was the importance of the welfare system in Europe. It unites people. But there’s a cost. And now at the NATO Summit we have all pledged - apart from Spain - a 3,5 % of GDP and another 1,5% as a sort of backup.
G. GERAPETRITIS: This is a problem. But this is a problem of democracy at the end of the day. And we need to recalibrate our needs. To be totally honest and blunt, I think sometimes we are very narcissists with things. We feel that everything will be solved because we are good enough. This is not the case. I wish we had endless resources in order to allow both for defense and for social welfare and for other social needs. But the truth is that resources are limited and we need to recalibrate. The European perspective in this is that we need to have a very strong social state. This is the basic understanding of European culture. And I don't see how this could change in the future. We could do some resetting, some recalibration, but there is no chance that we can abstain from this. I think this is the necessary accomplishment.
MODERATOR: It’s what Juncker said. We all know what we need to do, but if we do it, we won't be elected.
G. GERAPETRITIS: Absolutely. This is what I call the democratic price. We do know immediately when I say something, I know that I said something that it will be very costly, but it was the right thing. The problem of a politician is to say the right thing, without losing democratic legitimacy that they enjoy. It's not an easy calibration. The truth is that we need to be very open and very frank. I think this is something that we are missing at the moment. Being frank over society, it's something absolutely essential. I have the feeling that there's a lack of legitimacy now. This is a problem of democratic process. Why? Because first of all, there is a difference between the promises and the deliveries. This is a fundamental issue when it comes to European democracies. Then the problem is that people are challenging things, but not always on the rational basis.
What I suffer from every day here in Greece - I'm sure every Minister suffers from this - is the battle against untruth. Because what is really happening is that this disinformation and misinformation are having such a huge place in public dialogue that it's not easy to address. And when you try to address this, then you're finding yourself being attacked. We need to go back to the fundamental principles. We need to revisit the basics of democracy. When it comes to the transatlantic relations, I think we should just stick to this. I think it's of utmost importance for the future of the world, for peace and prosperity, that we stay together, the West, because this is the essence of our culture. But we have to do this on an equal footing and in a manner that is frank and open towards society. Because at the end of the day, the societies will judge us.
MODERATOR: Europe is an economic power in terms of GDP, number of people, etc. But it's also actually a regulatory power. It seems to me that you're now in the EU thinking of giving this up.
G. GERAPETRITIS: I think now we are in phase three of Europe. Immediately after World War II, we started with economic Europe. Then mid '90s, we moved to political Europe, and now we are in geopolitical Europe. That completely changes the scenery. I go back to your very short comment concerning the defence capabilities that we need to upgrade. Being a geopolitical power means that you need to have an overview of all phenomena, including economic phenomena. I do not feel anymore that the economy is our strong point. Our strong point is that we are a collective power that can mobilize people. I think exactly because of the fact that Europe relies on history and is very deeply rooted in culture, it has the power of mobilization, which is unprecedented in the world. I think this is our great force. If you see what happens in any European country, is that we all agree on the end result of any policy. We do agree in principles. The problem is that we disagree in the tools that we need to use, the toolkit that we have to employ in order to actually achieve the end result. But the mere fact that in Europe, we share the values which takes us to, essentially, the end point of a European, geopolitical scenery, I think it's amazing.
I am a little bit concerned with the new phase, because I think that this new phase happened very quickly and very forcibly because of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. But there are some positive outcomes from there. First of all, we now have a much stronger Europe. We need some common facilities. And above all, I think now we have the mindset of non-overreliance. The mindset of non-overreliance, I think is absolutely essential. When the Russian aggression against Ukraine started, Europe was essentially relying on Russian gas, almost 50%, and now it's less than 10%. I think this means strategic autonomy for Europe, and this is why we can have a multiplying effect in the global scenery, and I'm very proud for this.
I believe in the European vision. I believe in Europe, we have a huge capital. We have the capital of history, of culture, of adherence to principles, to rule-based policies, to a solid international legal order. I believe in the West. I believe that we need to just stay together, because as Aristotle was saying, the total sum is much more than the parts of it. We multiply our power, if we are together. In spite of any partial disagreements, I still think that the European vision is something which is very appealing. I totally agree with what Annalena said, we shouldn't be fearful of the future. We need to have vision. We need to persuade the younger generations. We need to invest in the future. My only concern now is how we leave a larger dividend for the future. This is something that we all should address, be that in terms of ecology or in terms of finance or in terms of human capital. What I really want to leave behind me is a significant dividend for the future. This is why I think all of us, what we are trying to do is just to look to the future. The future will be there, and we need to address it in a much more open way.
I'm really thankful for your contribution here. Thank you very much.
July 1, 2025