Elaboration and review of the draft law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Ratification of the Second Protocol of Amendment to the Mutual Defence Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Government of the United States of America”
Ladies and gentlemen MPs,
I will second what Mr. Vitsas previously said, that the procedure followed in the Standing Committees constitutes a debate, even in the case of a text such as this, which does not allow for any alteration.
It is a procedure of comprehending the government’s purposes, its will and negotiating tactics, to the extent that this is possible in an open session, as we need to be honest about that as well. I believe we are all aware of that in this room.
It is also a procedure of providing clarifications on the positions of both the main and the lesser opposition.
First of all, I would like to begin by making a favourable comment on the climate that has prevailed, regardless of the arguments put forward.
No one in this room can fail to discern that a pre-election year will be dawning in a few weeks and it is usual that agreements such as this one, when debated in a quasi pre-election period are subject to fierce criticism, controversy and harsh comments.
It is to the credit of all political parties and Parliament as a whole that, despite the disagreements voiced here, the climate was civilized and no one failed to recognize the patriotism of all the sides of Parliament, as they currently stand.
Now, as regards the substance of the matter and the arguments, I have no intention of reading my speech and then leave, as I too perceive the procedure here to constitute a debate.
I believe that both Mr. Panagiotopoulos and I will try to explain to the opposition parties the positions of the government majority.
There were two lines of reasoning developed regarding the specific agreement.
On the one hand, the Communist Party, as a matter of principle, rejected the agreement entirely, whatever that means.
That’s understandable, it is the Communist Party’s established position of principle and I believe that no one in this room has expected otherwise.
However, there was another line of reasoning put forward by SYRIZA and Elliniki Lysi, albeit with different connotations.
Without having the intention of exposing or insinuating anything for heaven’s sake, I have to say that I discerned a divergent approach coming from within the ranks of SYRIZA.
In his last intervention, Mr. Vitsas appeared somehow to reject the Agreement in principle.
Mr. Vitsas, in a part of your speech you seemed to come nearer to the position of the Communist Party, the position of outright rejection of any kind of agreement. In general, however, this other line of reasoning had to do with whether or not the negotiation proved to be beneficial, and whether or not the terms and provisions were adequate.
I have to say, however, that the mentality of the ‘evasive neutral’ which Mr. Vitsas presented again in his intervention, partly (or maybe not exactly partly) slipped in this approach.
Consequently, there are two lines of reasoning regarding this Agreement.
I have absolutely nothing to add to or argue with the outright rejection of the agreement, dear colleagues of the Communist Party.
There is a profound ideological difference between us. You believe that all this is to the detriment of our country, according to your own kind of patriotism, which I do not contest. We, instead, believe that it is beneficial for our country.
And I have to say that I was greatly impressed by Mr. Dimoschakis’ intervention because, if the truth be told, being in Vasilissis Sofias Avenue and Syntagma Square – where we are now – is one thing, and being in Evros is quite another. The feelings of security or insecurity created in each area are different.
However, I must say that apart from the very solid presentation by the rapporteur of the majority, Mr. George Koumoutsakos, the arguments I heard are more or less as follows: Firstly, there were comments on the preamble. I will not refer to political parties by name, there is no meaning in attributing something said to a specific political party, since I acknowledge that everyone here spoke according to his or her conscience and contributed to the debate guided by considerations of national interest. Therefore, I do not wish to individualize.
There were arguments heard concerning the preamble that are unprecedented.
For instance, we were accused for not reiterating the provision of the 1990 Agreement in the preamble.
We were even accused for not having read it, which is somehow amusing when addressed to Ministers such as Mr. Panagiotopoulos and me, who have been Parliamentarians for quite a few years.
Besides, the text of the Agreement is not that long. I have it here, in front of me, you can see it.
But we were accused for not reiterating in the preamble our commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
What are they insinuating? Because I didn’t understand well. That Greece and the United States no longer subscribe to the United Nations Charter? Can this argument be taken seriously in this room?
Hasn’t it been made clear that this is a protocol of amendment, and that what is not amended or repealed continues to apply?
Is it necessary to repeat this simple argument, which is familiar to first-year Law School students, so that there will be no accusations thrown against our own country, even if those who make them have no base motives?
And, if you will allow me, I would like to tell you something more.
There was a long debate along the same lines on the annexes as well. Why is it so difficult to understand that what is not amended continues to apply? Isn’t it obvious when reading the text?
I will turn now to another issue, which I believe deserves a response. Why is it then, you may ask, that we reiterate in the preamble the firm determination of both Greece and the United States mutually to safeguard and protect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of their respective countries against actions threatening peace, including armed attack or threat thereof? And confirm their resolve to actively and unreservedly oppose any such attempt or action and their commitment to making appropriate major efforts to prevent such a course of action?
Why is this contained in the preamble of the second Protocol of Amendment? It is contained, ladies and gentlemen MPs, because this is precisely what needed to be reiterated for everyone to hear.
It did not happen by chance or by accident. It could have been omitted. The choice to include it was made on purpose, for reasons we all understand.
And I expected that this reiteration would have been understood by Parliament and taken into account and to have an honest explanation of what this is all about.
In the same vein, what I was expecting is the realization that the whole contractual relationship between Greece and the United States is not contained in this protocol of amendment only, but also in Mr. Blinken’s letter to the Prime Minister, which follows the previous letter by Mr. Pompeo and the well-known bill passed by Congress; passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, that is, the “US-Greece Defense and Interparliamentary Partnership Act” of 2020-2021, which contains six chapters, including the chapter on the ‘3+1’ Initiative.
A Ministerial virtual meeting of the 3+1 format was held yesterday, in attendance of Mr. Blinken, Mr. Kasoulides, Mr. Lapid and me, on the F-35 fighter aircraft, the training program, the provision of military equipment and all things related.
And all this goes together.
They constitute the country’s contractual relationship with the United States.
I want to make it clear, then, that anyone can voice criticism, but they had better criticize the relationship with the United States of America as a whole.
As for the individual points now.
Time of Extension: why we chose a five-year extension instead of one year.
Exactly because we believe that this is in our national interest.
We have not done any favours.
We were asked “why are you so generous with the United States?”
Who is generous to the United States?
We are generous towards Greece and the Greek people, because this is how we perceive the interest of Greece and the Greek people.
We wanted the five-year extension.
And to tell you the truth, the government had mulled over a ten-year extension, not just a period of five years.
We want a US military presence in the country.
We have never beaten about the bush.
We have never pretended that we are the ones who wanted the military bases gone.
We do not want to engage in a false rhetoric.
We have a clear position on our national interest.
We wanted the US presence in Thrace, we really did.
And you are very well aware – I am referring to my dear rapporteur from the Opposition- Mr. Katrougalos – that I did not find, the Mitsotakis Government did not find, any agreement on MDCA in the previous protocol.
The agreement hadn’t been concluded, as was mentioned in Parliament back then.
That was not the case.
But one of the main points that convinced the government back then, and I signed with Mr. Pompeo the Agreement, was exactly the reference to Alexandroupolis.
We consider it to be of major importance.
And Mr. Vitsas, we do not want Alexandroupolis to be just a commercial port; no, we don’t.
We want the US military presence in the port of Alexandroupolis; yes, we do.
And the same applies to Giannoulis Military Camp as well; yes, we do.
We want it.
And allow me to tell you how right we seem to have been to want it.
What was the first thing President Erdogan complained about to President Biden in their first phone conversation?
What was the first thing that bothered him?
And he made it public.
That’s how much it bothered him.
It was exactly that.
You can judge it wrong, but we consider it to be of major benefit for the Greek people, of major benefit for Thrace.
I have been to Alexandroupolis four times and I will go there again.
I believe that the course of the region’s history has been changed because of the creation of the energy hub, the re-gasification of natural gas, the railway network that will be built, the road network, because of the fact that the airport is next to the port, and because of the logistics that will be provided to support all this effort.
And geopolitically speaking, the crisis in Ukraine proved right what we did.
Because please consider whether it would be possible now, under these new circumstances, to have this negotiation that took place back then.
But this is a conversation that might be worthwhile having, but not in an open session.
I would also like to point out the following, just so we are clear on this.
I am not referring to the debate in this room.
I am referring to the debate within Greek society.
A debate that largely runs through parties and factions and goes beyond that.
No one denies anyone’s patriotism, but there is a question to be raised.
How is this patriotism perceived?
Because of course we cannot hide in this room that many times in our history patriotism has been the façade of self-serving personal agendas.
But, let’s forget the past.
We should see, however, what reading of patriotism everyone individually has, I repeat, beyond parties and beyond factions, how everyone perceives patriotism when referring to it.
Because we should all agree that inaction is not patriotism, and also hiding one’s head in the sand is not patriotism.
And also, the perception of patriotism as a backward syndrome by politicians betrays a profound insecurity.
In other words, it reminds us of the well-known “call to arms”, as if words could safeguard the country and its future.
We believe – and I think the vast majority of Greek society does as well – in a patriotism that stems from self-confidence, from a deep sense of our identity and a deep self-awareness.
That is, an open, cordial patriotism, a patriotism that exudes confidence.
A patriotism that is aware of the major stakes at play in the 21st century, and Greece’s need to be open.
To be open to the Balkans, to be open to its wider region.
Not just to remain hostage of Greek-Turkish differences; to have a sense of its wider geopolitical role.
Yesterday I welcomed here in Athens the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kenya.
It was the first time that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kenya had come to Greece.
I have met with seven other Ministers of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ladies and Gentlemen MPs, Greece should “open up” its foreign policy.
And this Agreement is a tool to this end; so as to feel safe domestically, and being safer, to be able to expand our horizons; even as far as to the Indo-Pacific.
I went to Japan; I went to India.
We should broaden our perception and not fall back to phobias, which ultimately, through self-confinement, will weaken and limit us instead of empowering us.
Thank you very much.
Source: Hellenic Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs