A. TASOULI: Good morning. My name is Alexia Tasouli and we welcome you to the Delphi Economic Forum VII.
One of the issues dominating the news worldwide is the war in Ukraine, and it is a great honor and pleasure for us that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dendias, is with us today.
Good day, Minister.
N. DENDIAS: Good morning Ms. Tasouli.
A. TASOULI: Minister, the major issue is, of course, the war, the war itself; the massacres of civilians, the ongoing shelling. But I cannot help but ask you about the debate provoked by the speech of the President of Ukraine in the Hellenic Parliament, by his emotional reference to the phrase "Freedom or Death", by his references to the Greek Diaspora, but also about the reactions voiced because of the address of an AZOF fighter, as well as Mr. Zelenskyy's failure to refer to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
An omission that was considered by many to be deliberate, due to the good Ankara-Kiev relations. So how does Athens view Mr. Zelenskyy's stance and how do our partners view it, since the topic of discussion here at the Forum is Europe after Ukraine.
N. DENDIAS: Ms. Tasouli, first of all, we should always look at the bigger, the more important picture. Our country has a very clear position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
And it's not an ad hoc position, it's not a position that was elaborated or formulated for that specific event.
It is a position that stems from the firm, long-standing principles of the Greek, and if you allow me to say, of the European foreign policy as well, which stand for the territorial integrity of states and the rights that derive from the UN Charter.
In this regard, Greece stands in solidarity with Ukraine, as it would stand in solidarity with any country that would be invaded.
It goes without saying that the Republic of Cyprus is an invaded country and Greece's positions on Ukraine are exactly the same as its positions on the Cyprus issue.
I was not in Athens, I did not attend the speech in Parliament, I was in the Meeting of NATO Ministers. There were announcements issued by both the government and the Parliament on the issues arisen, so I will not say anything that has to do with it. I think all this has been answered.
I would just like to say that what always matters is the big picture. It makes no sense dealing with various issues of minor importance or anything else which have already been answered by the Parliament and the government.
A. TASOULI: One aspect of the Russian invasion is the expulsion of Russian diplomats from many European countries. You also took a similar decision to expel 12 Russian diplomats from Greece.
Don’t you worry that the Greek-Russian relations will be harmed, when you have also said in the past that Russia is a solid interlocutor of Greece over time.
N. DENDIAS: You are right and I am not at all happy, not about the disruption, but I think you put it nicely.
A. TASOULI: Meaning?
N. DENDIAS: There is a major problem in the relations between all the EU countries, the whole western alliance and Russia. Unfortunately, this is not the result of one choice of ours.
I, especially this Government, have tried very hard for two years -because at the time we came to power, relations with Russia were not at a particularly good level- to improve them, to develop channels of communication, to develop channels of understanding, to understand the sensitivities of Russia always with respect for its huge cultural tradition, its size, its history.
However, following the invasion of Ukraine, the landscape is not the same. The disruption of Russian-European relations and Greek-Russian relations was the result of a specific Russian behavior which is contrary to the established principles of Greek foreign policy.
I am sorry to say that Greece had no other alternative. It did the only thing it could do; to remain faithful to the principles and values it expresses. Otherwise, there would be an inherent contradiction between, for example, the positions we defend in the Cyprus issue and the positions we would hold against the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
So, for Greece, there was no alternative. It is up to Russia to return to the conduct as is provided for in the United Nations Charter and from there on we will make every effort to return to where we were before. You realize of course, that this is anything but easy.
A. TASOULI: It is not easy and I say this because the Russian Foreign Ministry and its spokesperson spoke about the major damage in the Greek-Russian relations, in our bilateral relations because of the expulsion.
She spoke of a hostile move, saying that they would respond appropriately. And that what is sought is to sow discord between the Greek and Russian people.
N. DENDIAS: Look, it is always good to distinguish peoples from the actions of their governments. Greece does not attribute the invasion to the entire Russian people and Russian society. It is a specific choice of a specific Government; this is what has happened.
Now, beyond that, it is true that we expect retaliation from the Russian side. It is a normal development of things. But I reiterate, we are neither naive, nor do we fly in the face of reality or be content about that.
On the contrary, we consider that the developments in Europe, in the world, are tragic. Talking about war in Europe in the 21st century is tragic in itself.
Beyond that, however, Greece has no responsibility whatsoever and I want to be frank with you. There was no other option whatsoever.
We are a small country. We have specific principles, specific values, a specific policy over time. We do not have an ad hoc policy.
We pursue a principled policy. It is the only way to be credible and respected within the international community.
A. TASOULI: Let us turn to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Mr. Sergey Lavrov. If it turns out that Mr. Lavrov did not know that the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, would proceed with the invasion, as he himself assured you when you saw him a few hours before the start of the war, isn’t there an issue for himself, the otherwise very experienced Russian Diplomat, who we see persisting in a rhetoric that is identical to the rhetoric of the Russian President?
N. DENDIAS: This is a discussion that has already been held and it is a thing now of the past. It does not matter. Unfortunately, reality is determined by the situation on the ground and what is the situation on the ground? A barbaric invasion of an independent member state of the United Nations. This is the situation on the ground.
Beyond that, of course, I made specific comments in the past. It makes no sense to repeat them. I have already said it, I have made my assessments of who knew what, which are my personal assessments though.
We will never know. That is the truth. What is useful at this point, however, is to use a common language, a common wording, to address an aggressive revisionist force and to point out to it that the way back to the International Community and to international legality is to remedy the consequences of its own illegality.
A. TASOULI: Could you tell us more about Greece’s request to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to investigate war crimes committed in Mariupol, as you said?
When will we make this request and to what use shall we put the Court’s decision politically, if and when it rules on who is responsible? Who is responsible for the killings of civilians, including Diaspora Greeks, in Mariupol?
N. DENDIAS: First of all, Greece has a special interest in the coastal zone of the Black Sea. Greek populations have been living there for centuries. They are neither people who left Greece during the last 10, 20 or 30 years, nor people who went there because of the economic crisis.
This is why I visited Mariupol before the Russian invasion and expressed to the Russian side our special interest, precisely for the reason that in the context of various scenarios that had been made known, a possible attack against Mariupol had come to our notice.
And I asked the Russian side to pay special attention. Why? Because in 2014 the Russian side mistook a funeral procession for a military unit, and launched a missile killing 14 Diaspora Greeks there. I visited the monument in their memory and laid a wreath.
Then I travelled to Moscow to tell the Russians what I had to tell them about Mariupol, sotto voce. What do we see today instead? On the TV screens that is, because they do not even allow us to go there.
I offered to go there and bring humanitarian aid with me, to go to Mariupol as I went to Odessa.
A. TASOULI: Russia, however, refused to grant the request.
N. DENDIAS: We were not allowed to go. And I suspect we were not allowed to go, for what reason? Just so we would not be able to see what happened there. But the picture described by the Greek Consul there, who was the last to leave and in fact left well after the start of hostilities, meaning that to a great extent he witnessed the situation on the ground, is not good, not good at all.
Therefore, what we ought to do is to ask the Court to conduct a special investigation for this city, in the context of the investigation that we, together with other countries, have already requested.
Destroying cities and killing civilians in order to achieve military objectives is not possible in the 21st century. This is not acceptable.
We cannot go back to the 20th or the 19th century, cities cannot be desolated because of shelling, and civilians cannot be killed by regular troops. Mercenaries cannot set foot on European soil. We cannot return to the age of barbarism. We need to draw a red line.
A. TASOULI: Another important aspect is the need to become independent of Russian natural gas and the Eastern Mediterranean with its gas deposits can play a significant role in this regard.
Ms. Victoria Nuland however, whom you met recently in Athens, in an interview with ‘Kathimerini’ newspaper delivered the fatal blow to the EastMed pipeline, while at the same time the State Department proposed in a letter to the Congress the potential sale of F16 fighter jets to Turkey.
What are the intentions of the Americans after all, judging from your contacts with US officials?
N. DENDIAS: Ms. Nuland expressed an opinion but it could in no way have been a blow, because I have not seen the EastMed pipeline lying dead. I would tell you that maybe, under certain conditions, it is alive and kicking, to use the English expression.
A. TASOULI: What are these conditions, LNG maybe, or what else?
N. DENDIAS: What are the conditions, the possible conditions? From the beginning, it was all about the economic viability of the project. Ms. Nuland -and I have read exactly what she said, apart from having met with her three times and I believe I have a good personal relationship with her, so I think we speak quite frankly to each other - has precisely raised the issue of economic viability.
And she said one other thing regarding the time frame of the project, meaning what? Europe needs energy, but can the EastMed pipeline provide this energy within the next couple of years, which is the time frame the European Union has set to become independent from Russian sources of energy? The reality is no, it can’t, we all agree on that. But she does not say that the project itself is dead. She says that it is not useful when taking into account the narrow time frame set in order to become independent.
That is what she says, and rightly so.
A. TASOULI: So, are economic viability and the time frame the factors to determine whether to proceed or not with the EastMed project?
N. DENDIAS: Just a minute there. Let’s now turn to the crafty argument, the underlying geopolitical argument, of all those who claim the EastMed project is dead. But the US side and Ms Nuland support the Asia Interconnector, the transport of electricity, which follows exactly the same route with the EastMed. There is no such thing as a geopolitical choice when it comes to the EastMed.
A. TASOULI: But this argument was made in the non-paper that had come before.
N. DENDIAS: No, even in this non-paper, when read in its entirety, there is an argument in favour of the Interconnector, right below the paragraph with the reservations about the EastMed project.
Therefore, there is no geopolitical argument against the EastMed. There is an economic argument calling for a measure of circumspection as regards the feasibility of the project. But this is what the Greek side has been saying from the beginning, what the Cypriot and the Israeli sides have been saying from the beginning. It is important to discern whether there is a point to the project, otherwise we would be literally throwing our money into the sea.
Beyond that, Ms Nuland made the case for the use of LNG and this is understandable. The USA sells LNG. Isn't it natural for a US Secretary to favour the sale of LNG?
When I travel abroad, am I not in favour of selling Greek products in the countries I go to? You know, I think we have dwelled too much on the issue and attached geopolitical aspects to it which it does not have.
Ms. Nuland, as well as the entire US political system, in a cross-party or bipartisan fashion if you like, is in favour of the trilateral Greece-Cyprus-Israel scheme, the 3+1 format, that is, the three countries and the United States.
And I believe they rely a lot on this scheme.
A. TASOULI: Regarding the State Department’s proposal for the potential sale of F16 fighter jets to Turkey – of course it is a proposal that must be adopted by the Congress – but is it a disturbing proposal for us?
N. DENDIAS: Look, I want to be honest with you again. Turkey is a NATO member; an ally of ours within the framework of a specific alliance.
On the other hand, Turkey has repeatedly threatened Greece. So, until Turkey withdraws its threats against Greece, namely the well-known casus belli, Greece is not pleased with Turkey's armaments or re-armaments because under certain conditions they might turn against us.
We have made clear to the US administration under what terms Greece would agree with the providing of weapons to Turkey. This does not change; it is a long-standing principle of Greek foreign policy.
Now, the US administration, under the pressure of the current situation, the situation in Ukraine, is expressing some thoughts. We have our reservations as regards Turkey, which we are not going to lift just because Russia invaded Ukraine.
We have a long-standing position, we want Turkey to be a NATO member, we want Turkey to be part of the international system, we want Turkey to be our friend and ally, but it's really up to Turkey.
Turkey must choose the fundamental principles of its own foreign policy, which will also align the country with International Law, the International Law of the Sea and that will lead to the withdrawal of the casus belli, which is completely, utterly unacceptable. The casus belli is completely unacceptable.
There is no provision for the threat of war against another country in International Law.
A. TASOULI: Minister, I warmly thank you for the discussion we had today in the Delphi Economic Forum. Thank you so much.
N. DENDIAS: I thank you very much.
April 10, 2022