Dimitris Chatzidimitriou: “Beggar’s patriotism” – Europe is not what we think it is

Europe for many reasons (political, historical, chauvinistic) will hardly become a factor capable of collectively guaranteeing the security of its member states. The sooner we realize this, the easier it will be for the necessary multi-level and in-depth dialogue to begin in Greece.

This dialogue, with national characteristics, but without nationalist fantasies and entrenchments, is a necessary condition for Greece to acquire a set of solid principles. These can engender elements on which an integrated national strategy will be based and developed with clearly stated goals for the reorganization of Greek policies and clear-cut lines of action-reaction.

This is a condition for defending the territorial integrity and vital interests in a world of unprecedented fluidity. For those who still have doubts about the necessity of what was noted, the last European Council sends a key message that no one in Athens has the right to ignore or relativize the issue. Otherwise, the humiliation of “Finlandization” or, worse, the degradation of national mutilation is lurking just around the corner.

Let the Summit conclusions concerning Turkey be used not as an occasion for an anti-European spirit, but as an incentive for a more meaningful understanding of the EU, given the balances within it. The EU has a well-organized customs situation, which allows for the smooth export of the industrial surplus of northern Europe to the countries of the south. Hence the enrichment of the former.

At the same time, the EU remains an imperfect economic union and a non-existent political-geopolitical power. Seibel’s words, at the beginning of the Greek crisis, about an intra-European division of capabilities, capable of guaranteeing the balanced development of the Member States, through the exploitation of their comparative advantages, was never discussed. It was as if it had never been said.

Germany and Europe

Because of the German syndromes stemming from two catastrophic wars that Berlin unleashed against Europe, the EU remains stuck in a state of political dwarfism. The choice to appear on the international stage as soft power is not temporary, it is tending to take on a more permanent character. That is why European countries did not hide the relief they felt from Trump’s defeat.

The EU prefers the US security umbrella to developing its own defense capabilities, which would allow it to emerge internationally as a balancing act between the US-Russia-China conflict and as a potential security provider. That is, through hard power it could occupy the position it is entitled to as a major economic force, in redrawing boundaries and redrafting geopolitical terms.

From the point of view of abstaining from critical confrontations, the EU will continue to be a second-class political force with ever-declining credibility, in its ability to intervene effectively in crisis management, even in its vicinity. Such a Europe is doomed to admit its submission to the United States with various euphemisms about the unity of the Western world.

Europe will tolerate the vindictive policy of the Kremlin and the aggressive-revisionist policy of Erdogan. It will watch their political battles with embarrassment and will pretend that it does not realize their declared goals, to rebuild the empires that were deprived them by history.

Europe and Greek illusions

This knowledge will better reposition Greece within the EU and make actions more effective within it, given that the Greek diplomatic capital has a very specific potential in influencing decisions, whatever we choose to believe it, or not. Let us not hide from the truth. Greece of the last two decades is a small to medium size country in a declining course, primarily as a consequence of its own mistakes. This is a truth that must be realized if we are to begin a process of total recovery.

The political personnel and those who aspire to have a role in public affairs, influencing public opinion, should get rid of catastrophic delusions to secure the territorial integrity and vital interests of Greece. The many billions of the Community Budget 2021-2027 and the Recovery Fund are obviously welcome, but not with discounts on the hardcore of Greek national existence. In this case, there is no real “butter or cannons” dilemma.

The text of Summit Conclusions

A year ago, on 13 December 2019, the Conclusions of the European Council underlined that “the European Council recalls the previous Conclusions of 22 March, 20 June and 17-18 October, on illegal drilling in the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus”! And just last week, EU leaders agreed that “the European Council should return to the conclusions of the 1st and 2nd of October 2020”!

Nice words, elegant formulations, which cause incredible mirth on the other side of the Aegean. No matter how “big a ship” the EU is, a year is too long for it to “turn”, as Greek PM Mitsotakis is fond of saying. However, apart from the refutation of those who were waiting – and cultivating a climate of expectations – for the EU to announce sanctions against Turkey, there are shifts in Brussels that are extremely worrying for Greece.

There is no shortage of partners ready to negotiate with Turkey on the basis of faits accomplis, which it has achieved through military power from Libya and Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh. This was Cavusoglu’s message when he stated: “Despite the fact that we have changed the balance both in Cyprus and in the issue of Azerbaijan as well as in other issues, such as Libya, we say come and solve this case together. If there is any wealth, let us share it.” Let us solve the problems with diplomacy, with political methods.”

Europe and the Turkish concept of law

He also recalled Erdogan’s proposal to the EU to hold a conference “not only of the Eastern Mediterranean countries, not only of the coastal countries around the Mediterranean, but we also proposed the participation of countries that have companies in the region. We are not of the approach that we want everything, saying that we are very strong on the field and at the table in Libya and in the Eastern Mediterranean. ”

Cavusoglu, in a show of Oriental generosity, invites interested Europeans to share their trove of energy reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, which by force and in violation of international law, Turkey plans to acquire under the guise of mediators.

An aside of Merkel’s statements at the end of the European Council is interesting: “There are some situations in the south-eastern Mediterranean, where unfortunately we have to say that we had to make additional lists, due to – in our view – illegal drilling”. It is as if the EU, through the chancellor, is putting International Maritime Law and “Turkish” law on the same level.

Questions that demand answers

Equally worrying is the EU’s insistence on accepting Erdogan’s proposal for an “international meeting”, as set out in point 34 of the Conclusions: “The European Council calls on the High Representative to advance the proposal for a multilateral conference on the Eastern Mediterranean”. Reasonable questions are raised about this:

Michelle and Borrell’s soundings revealed a climate of strong reservations from Egypt and Israel. Will this change anything?

The procedures for delimiting the EEZs and those related to the exploitation of resources are fully provided for in the Law of the Sea, which, as a Customary Law, also binds Turkey, which has not signed it, but has applied it in the Black Sea. What will the Europeans do at this conference? Will they rewrite the Law of the Sea, as Turkey wants?

Athens must make it absolutely clear that it will oppose by all means any attempt to adulterate the Law of the Sea and to revise the Conventions and Treaties that define the regime in the Aegean, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Cyprus.

It is imperative that Greece get out of the German vise, reject Berlin mediation, more so since Germany is not acting as a just referee, but as Turkey’s eternal ally. There are legal procedures for resolving disputes over maritime zones. Let Berlin persuade Ankara to accept them.

There is a need for Greece to reinvent itself within the EU. To overcome anxieties and convenient illusions, to strengthen its deterrent power, through strategic cooperation on a bilateral basis. At the same time, the political system must use the billions at its disposal for the country’s total reorganization. This “beggar’s patriotism” must end. It narrows the national scope and is constantly shifting to an indefinite future everything that needs to be done for a robust reconstruction of Greece.