Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Gerapetritis’ interview on the ERT TV "Syndeseis" show with journalists Kostas Papachlimintzos and Christina Vidou (14.05.2024)

Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Gerapetritis’ interview on the ERT TV "Syndeseis" show with journalists Kostas Papachlimintzos and Christina Vidou (14.05.2024)JOURNALIST: The Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Gerapetritis, is with us. We thank him very much, as we know he returned late last night from Ankara. And so, he is here this morning to help us evaluate this meeting, with the assistance, of course, of our good colleague Nikos Meletis. Good morning to you too, Nikos. So, let us begin with you, Minister, with an obvious first question. This was the two leaders’ fourth meeting in ten months. What is your assessment? Are there any, let us say, tangible benefits for the Greek side?

G. GERAPETRITIS: Mr. Papachlimintzos, I believe that following yesterday's meeting, we are entering a new phase regarding Greek-Turkish relations and our dialogue. This phase is characterized by a sense of normality. As the Prime Minister stated, a productive normality. And what do I mean by that?

Firstly, we meet at regular intervals and will continue to do so.

The second is that we do not need to produce multiple agreements or handle major issues every time we meet. We should meet and discuss regularly.

And thirdly and most importantly in my view, we should be able to discuss and disagree without causing tensions and potential crises. Because our fundamental position is that we should always focus on what is mutually beneficial. However, we should also discuss difficult and contentious issues without necessarily creating conditions of tension.

JOURNALIST: You know, people are wondering – since you talked about a new phase in the relations between the two countries – how long do you expect this dialogue to continue without any concrete results? Or without a solution to any issue that someone might now consider requiring one?

G. GERAPETRITIS: There are indeed results, Ms. Vidou, and I believe the results are evident both in terms of rhetoric and in terms of actions. In the past ten months, any hostile rhetoric has disappeared. We have managed to achieve a détente regarding the tensions that were present in previous years, both in rhetoric and in action. We all understand the importance of having nearly zero migration flows from our eastern borders, as well as no violations of our airspace. I believe these are very significant conditions for the prosperity of our nation. I would like to emphasize that, at a time when hostilities in our broader region are unprecedented, being a pillar of stability in our area and maintaining a sense of calm is extremely important.

To answer your question about how long this will last. My belief is that it can last. I have the sense that the dialogue currently taking place, despite any disagreements that are recorded, is a sincere dialogue, governed by mutual understanding. We are aware that there are issues on which there cannot be convergence. These issues also carry their own historical weight.

On the other hand, I believe both sides understand that, especially today, achieving greater calm in our region and, most importantly, a greater perspective is of great value. I would like to particularly point out that the major issue of international politics on which we disagreed yesterday, the Middle East, is currently in a very complex phase. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is also in a particularly critical phase. I want to highlight that there are areas that potentially could cause significant crises, especially in Africa. The current situation in Sub-Saharan Africa creates conditions of great pressure in terms of migration and the economy, but mainly in the humanitarian aspect. Being able to discuss with Türkiye and having this understanding is crucial for as long as it lasts. And our effort will be to make it last for a long time.

JOURNALIST: Minister, isn't there a risk that raising issues of sovereignty against our country would become the norm? We have seen this in an interview with Mr. Erdogan in "Kathimerini", in previous statements, and with the issue of the marine parks. Essentially, Türkiye views this calm period, these calm waters in the Aegean, and the lack of violations as an exchange for us not exercising our sovereign rights in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Isn't there a risk that this will become accepted as normality for sovereignty issues?

G. GERAPETRITIS: With all due respect, I disagree with what you said. And I mainly disagree on a factual level, not in terms of evaluation. The evaluation is entirely up to you. I disagree on a factual level for the following reasons.

First, issues of sovereignty are not part of the discussion. The Turkish side may indeed have its own positions regarding sovereignty and issues that have long been part of the Turkish agenda. However, sovereignty issues will not be included in our discussions.

Secondly, regarding the exercise of our sovereign rights, there is no "quid pro quo". Greece fully exercises its sovereignty and its sovereign rights. It is our belief that we can discuss and find solutions to issues without relinquishing any of our rights. And no right has been relinquished at all, if I may say so, Mr. Meletis. There is indeed great calm in the Aegean.

The times, Mr. Meletis, are not far off - you recall them well because you are a very experienced editor and I believe you also have the historical memory from your time here on public television - when we were experiencing uncontrollable situations. In 2015-2016, we received 1.2 million refugees and migrants across our eastern borders. Idomeni and Moria are not that far back. Moreover, I should mention that hostile rhetoric against Greece was commonplace. Air force interceptions in the Aegean carried the risk of an accidental war. All these are very recent, Mr. Meletis.

Allow me to tell you this: I am neither utopian, nor naive. I know that Türkiye has very strong positions, which date back decades. What I want is for us to be able to discuss in a deliberative spirit, to be able to disagree civilly, to disagree without causing tensions and crises. On the other hand, we should be able to promote a positive agenda with mutually beneficial agreements that can advance our bilateral relations. No relinquishment of sovereignty, no discussion about sovereignty.

JOURNALIST: Since the marine parks were mentioned, will the Greek government proceed with their establishment despite Türkiye's emphatic and obvious disagreement? Or will we back down if Türkiye says, "Stop, we are not allowing this"?

G. GERAPETRITIS: I am quite clear and I reiterate that if you have noticed any concessions on our part recently, please point it out to me. Because I have read the opposition's comments about constant concessions without offering even a basic argument or an objective fact.

Our answer is clear. The marine parks will be established. The marine parks are essentially the cornerstone of marine environmental protection, which is extremely critical for our country and, in my opinion, extremely useful for all Mediterranean countries. They are the follow-up to the major conference held in Greece with the participation of 125 countries and international organizations for the protection of seas and oceans, resulting in approximately 400 commitments amounting to 11.5 billion dollars. Greece declared that it will establish two marine parks based on environmental criteria. We are currently in the study phase, defining technical environmental criteria. Once this is completed, the parks will be mapped out. These are issues related to Greek sovereignty and, in reality, concern the sustainability not just of Greece but of the entire planet.

JOURNALIST: Minister, I realize that the core issues, such as delimitation, are still off the table for discussion. They are not yet mature, as you and the Prime Minister have stated. When will we know if these issues have matured enough to be addressed? Will you and your counterpart, Mr. Fidan, take the lead on this? Do you assess these issues during your meetings to see if the conditions are ripe so that you can move forward to the next step with exploratory talks? How will this process unfold? And when do you foresee this happening?

G. GERAPETRITIS: I believe, Mr. Meletis, you are right in raising the issue of the delimitation of the continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone as a major issue. This is because it is the underlying issue from which multiple tensions arise. I genuinely believe that if at some point we manage to resolve the issue of the delimitation of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone we will achieve a long-lasting and sustainable peace in our region. For now, we have not brought up these issues, as you mentioned.

Our goal - and I believe there is a mutual understanding with Türkiye on these matters - is that it is useful to discuss these issues in the near future. This will be decided by the two leaders, who will have the opportunity to meet more frequently in the immediate future. We will receive the mandate to have this discussion. Allow me to say, Mr. Meletis, that as you know, there is a very long history of discussions on delimitation within the framework of the so-called exploratory talks. Unfortunately, despite having multiple rounds - 63 rounds of exploratory talks in the past - we have not been able to reach a point where we could agree on the delimitation or even agree to refer this difference to international jurisdiction. I believe that the current historical moment is suitable for us to have this discussion and bring a long and prosperous peace to our country. When these conditions will mature, in my view, depends on two factors.

The first factor is to further establish good understanding and sincerity between the parties. The second is to evaluate the agreements that have been signed to ensure they have produced a positive and beneficial outcome. Allow me to inform you that 15 very important agreements and memoranda were signed on December 7 alone, within the framework of the Turkish delegation's visit. These agreements should be evaluated, and once we confirm that they have produced positive results and a climate of sincerity and good understanding has been solidified, we will proceed.

Mr. Meletis, Ms. Vidou, Mr. Papachlimintzos, I would like to particularly highlight issues that are of low politics but of high significance and symbolism. Through the efforts of the Greek government and coordination with the European Commission, we initiated a program for visits by Turkish citizens to ten of our islands. This program - beyond its enormous economic value for our islands, as it lasts throughout the year, extends the tourist season, and broadens the tourism product itself - has great value because it brings citizens from both countries closer together. I believe that the implementation of this agreement has already resulted in great satisfaction both on our islands and from the Turkish side. These are the kinds of agreements we aim to bring forward to foster good understanding and good people-to-people diplomacy so that we can tackle the more difficult issues as well.

JOURNALIST: These low-politics issues are indeed very important. I will refer to one of the thorns in the relationship between the two countries. I am referring to the Cyprus issue. Publicly, we did not hear anything in the statements of the two leaders. I don't know if this was addressed in their private closed-door discussions. Where do we stand at the moment in terms of discussions and what initiatives are you taking?

JOURNALIST: Did you receive any message from Erdogan during the discussion, in view of the ongoing dialogue with Ms. Holguín?

G. GERAPETRITIS: First of all, let me point out that it is the belief of both the Greek and Cypriot governments that the improvement of Greek-Turkish relations contributes positively to the discussions on the Cyprus issue. I believe that through the current discussions between Greece and Türkiye, an extremely beneficial outcome can be produced for the talks currently taking place under the auspices of the United Nations.

My response will be clear. Yes, we raised the Cyprus issue. There was a discussion about the Cyprus issue. Our position, dear friends, is that the talks between the parties should be resumed. That is, between President Christodoulides and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Tatar, under the auspices of the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Maria Angela Holguín, so that we can determine the framework within which we will operate. This framework can only be the UN Security Council resolutions on a Bizonal Bicommunal Federation.

I want to say that although there has indeed been increased rhetoric in recent years from the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot sides regarding sovereign equality, which is outside the framework of the United Nations, the crucial thing right now - and this is why we are exerting all our influence - is for President Christodoulides and Mr. Tatar to sit at the same table and discuss.

What I want to say is that from our side, all the necessary diplomatic pressures are being applied. Allow me to tell you that shortly, I will welcome the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Ms. Holguín, to my office at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We will have a discussion. We have very regular contact with Ms. Holguín regarding the Cyprus issue, which always remains of utmost diplomatic importance for the Greek government. And allow me to tell you that I remain hopeful that in the near future, we will have discussions on this issue. We must ascertain the possibilities to move forward towards a long-lasting and viable solution to the Cyprus issue. There is absolutely no chance that we will leave the Cyprus issue behind.

JOURNALIST: You mentioned earlier that the opposition’s statement refers to systematic concessions without providing any specifics. Yesterday evening's SYRIZA statement refers to concessions and gives the following example: it is an unprecedented event that essentially Mr. Mitsotakis gave the green light to the Turkish President for the unlawful conversion of the Monastery of Chora from a museum into a mosque, focusing solely on issues of public accessibility.

G. GERAPETRITIS: We all understand well that this statement has no factual basis. To set things straight, let me say the following.

First, the decision to convert the Monastery of Chora into a mosque was taken in 2020. There has indeed been restoration work. Last week, the Turkish government announced the operation of mosques of 200 monuments including the Monastery of Chora. What we place particular emphasis on is the preservation of the universal cultural character of the Monastery of Chora. This universal cultural character pertains to the ability of everyone to see the cultural treasures of the Monastery of Chora. If you had had the opportunity to visit it in the past, you would know that it contains mosaics which, in my opinion, epitomize Byzantine culture. They are of extremely high value both historically and artistically. I believe it is absolutely necessary to ensure the museum character of this monument.

We raised this issue. You are aware that it is of great sensitivity to both Greek citizens and the Greek government. We raised it with special emphasis before the Turkish delegation. I believe President Erdogan understood the Greek side's sensitivity. I am hopeful that in the immediate future, we will see progress on this issue that will preserve the monument’s universal and museum character.

JOURNALIST: Meaning?

G. GERAPETRITIS: I am very clear that this monument should be open to the public, and all its cultural treasures should be accessible to people of all religions.

JOURNALIST: So, they should not be covered with sheets.

G. GERAPETRITIS: We understand the significance of having the mosaics and those inside the church uncovered. These issues are very important. I understand that there is great sensitivity, and I fully justify it regarding the Monastery of Chora, which is why it was one of the issues we raised with particular intensity. You know, many times, for issues that hold great historical and cultural value for us, there may not be a shared understanding of their significance from the other side. For this reason, I would add that it is particularly important to have these discussions so that both sides can understand each other’s sensitivities. And for us, the Monastery of Chora is of major sensitivity.

JOURNALIST: I am simply relaying a concern from our viewers. Initially, it was Hagia Sophia, and now the Monastery of Chora. Could there be a third incident? If so, how will the government and Greek diplomacy respond once again?

G. GERAPETRITIS: First of all, there have been reactions since 2020 regarding both Hagia Sophia and the Monastery of Chora. We understand that the Turkish side’s position might be completely different, but there is no question of us backing down on this. We will raise these issues in every forum, as we have done so within UNESCO and all international organizations. I am informing my colleagues in the European Union about the issues concerning universal cultural heritage. We are not going to leave this issue unaddressed in any way.

JOURNALIST: Before we move on to the issue of North Macedonia, I would like to ask one final question about yesterday’s meeting. It went somewhat unnoticed what Tayyip Erdogan mentioned about interrelated issues. I would like to ask if he brought this up during the meeting, or in any of the meetings that have taken place, and what the Greek side’s response was.

G. GERAPETRITIS: At the moment, we are discussing issues that are currently at the frontline. We are talking about migration, civil protection, health, and the international environment. As far as the Aegean issues are concerned, the Greek side’s position is unwavering. It is our national stance that the delimitation of the continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone is the sole issue that currently exists and can be brought before international jurisdiction. It is on this basis that we will discuss it. Sovereignty issues could not and will not be brought to the table for discussion or dialogue.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that tomorrow morning, I will brief the Standing Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs so that there is a full briefing of Parliament on Greek-Turkish relations. I consider it of utmost importance that Greek citizens, as well as the National Delegation and political parties, are directly informed about what is happening regarding the Greek-Turkish dialogue. For this reason, I believe that the ERT platform is necessary to provide direct information, as was the case following the Council on December 7th.

JOURNALIST: Minister, regarding North Macedonia, I will set aside the criticism you face from the opposition, according to which you are currently pleading for full implementation of an agreement that New Democracy rejected at the time of its signing in 2018.  How do we move forward from now on? There is a flagrant violation of the Agreement by Ms. Siljanovska, the new President, as it is explicitly stipulated both by the Agreement and by the circular issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that she cannot use the term "Macedonia", but she is obliged as a representative of a state body to refer to the new constitutional name.

The Agreement itself stipulates how Greece can proceed, by denouncing this in bilateral contacts and then escalating the reactions. How do you see this issue evolving? An agreement, regardless of how good or bad it is, should be implemented in good faith.

G. GERAPETRITIS: These are two different issues. Allow me first, to refer to the minor one, and then I will address the major one. The minor is the main opposition's reaction, which, if I may say so, is a false and particularly simplistic interpretation of a complex situation. First of all, there is absolutely no pleading on the part of the Greek side. The Greek side demands compliance with what has been agreed. You are well aware that once an international treaty has been ratified by the Parliaments, it takes precedence over the law. Neither of the two states can unilaterally amend this Agreement. Therefore, even when it disagrees with the content of the Treaty, it has to apply it.

I would like to point out the issue’s different institutional handling by the two countries. As the opposition party at the time the Prespa Agreement was ratified, the current ruling party had expressed very specifically and clearly its disagreement on certain chapters related to "gray" areas that could potentially cause tensions, and they appear to be causing tensions. However, when we came to power, we implemented the agreement in the context of the state’s continuity and the constitutional imperative that any government cannot unilaterally amend treaties and we demanded compliance from the other side. I truly listen with curiosity to the argument, which is raised as to why the memoranda following the Prespa Agreement were not brought to ratification.

JOURNALIST: That’s where the opposition stands, accusing you for five years of not doing so.

G. GERAPETRITIS: They blame us for this, but allow me to tell you something simple: I believe there could not be a greater vindication of this policy, namely to depend on the ratification of the memoranda on full compliance with the Agreement, than what has occurred. Because it is critical that diverging views are apparent among North Macedonia's political leadership at this time. As I have repeatedly stated, we will bring them before Parliament, at the appropriate political time, that is, when the Greek side is convinced that there is full compliance. Because we are all aware that the neighboring country has failed to comply with certain provisions. And I am not referring to the name, but rather to other issues.

Allow me to now explain what is happening with the name. Let us begin by examining the specifics, the institutional aspects. The name “Republic of North Macedonia” appears in the Prespa Agreement, and it cannot be modified under any circumstances, according to the same Agreement, in Article 20, in the final article. Therefore, the issue of the name is not one of those issues that can be modified, not even by mutual agreement. Thus, there is no question of amendment, as agreed upon by both sides, ratified, and binding both the current Greek political order and the political order of North Macedonia.

Secondly, it is not just the pressure that Greece is currently exerting. It is the pressure being exerted within North Macedonia. Mr. Meletis correctly mentioned the announcement made by North Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanding full compliance from the President, as well as the announcement by the Ministry of Justice describing the swearing-in ceremony as null and void. I would also like to point out that the policy that the new President appears to be adopting is also contrary to public opinion in North Macedonia.

Third and, in my opinion, most crucial, was the fact that the Greek side reacted with readiness and extreme promptness. The Community authorities were immediately informed via initiatives undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. An announcement was issued and, as Mr. Meletis is aware, it is unusual to have such an immediate reaction on the part of the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, and the Representative of the European Union. Simultaneously, there was an international stance, in other words, many countries have issued a statement in this direction. Therefore, there is a coordinated reaction towards compliance.

Mr. Meletis brought up a significant point: what our next steps will be. We demand compliance with the Prespa Agreement. It is International Law and it must be applied. We will shape the framework so that it is fully implemented. We all understand that in terms of ideology and worldview, the new political leadership may have a different opinion, but there are issues that are above their will.  It is not a matter of self-determination of every political official. We all realize this. It is a matter of adhering to what has been agreed upon, and the Greek government will act in this direction.

JOURNALIST: However, I believe that, as the Anglo-Saxons say, there is an elephant in the room. There is "an elephant in the room", both in terms of North Macedonia and Albania. Let us now move on to both topics. I am not sure if you are concerned about the sudden tension in our relations with our two northern neighbors. “The elephant” is the prospect of a veto over the two countries' accession course. Is this on the table of the Greek government, the Greek diplomacy?

G. GERAPETRITIS: This is not “the elephant,” if I may say so. The veto is an institutional right granted to European Union Member States. We are clear: North Macedonia's accession path is clearly dependent on the full and in good faith implementation of the Prespa Agreement. Therefore, it is a prerequisite for the accession processes to advance. We are closely monitoring this situation and will act accordingly. This has been emphasized by the European Union's leadership, as well.
Regarding Albania, we understand that the rule of law, rights of minorities, democracy and acquis communautaire guarantees are exclusively European issues, not bilateral ones. We are often criticized for these issues. I would like to emphasize this and take this opportunity to bring it to the attention of the Greek people. We are in favour of peace in the Balkans and in favour of the European course of all the Western Balkans countries. After all, Greece, was the one that initiated and expedited the procedure in Thessaloniki in 2003. However, we should bear in mind that concessions on fundamentals cannot be made, which is why our own leadership exercises very strict supervision.

JOURNALIST: Minister, regarding Albania, rule of law violations occurred prior to the Himarë case and Beleri's detention, but Greece had not raised the issue of an obstacle to Albania's accession process. This arose following the Himarë incident and the fact that they took the municipality from Fredi Beleri. I would like to ask: Mr. Rama appeared two days ago in Athens assuming that the issue no longer exists and we can begin again from the start. That we erase everything and we start over from scratch. Is that so? In other words, what is Greece's position regarding Himarë? What do we demand from the Albanian side in terms of respect for the rule of law, as you previously stated?

G. GERAPETRITIS: These are two different issues...

JOURNALIST: So, even if Fredi Beleri is elected as a MEP, does the issue end for us too?

G. GERAPETRITIS: First of all, we understand that there is a certain historical point in Euro-Albanian relations. At the moment, the chapter on the fundamentals has not even been opened. The first chapter to be opened concerns precisely the respect for fundamental freedoms. We understand that all issues relating to Himarë, including minorities' rights and respect for all citizens' political rights, will be raised precisely when the chapter on fundamentals is opened, and that all issues relating to Himarë will be evaluated. Therefore, at this moment, the Greek side is following the situation. Our monitoring is strict. I believe that the situation is also well understood in Europe. The European leaders have been informed about the situation, as have the European Commissioners. And I believe that when the time comes, the Greek side will raise the issues objectively. We will never exaggerate our exercise, and we will not pursue transactional policies. What we want to ensure is that every state that joins the European family adheres to democratic principles and the rule of law, and we will ensure that this is fully implemented.

JOURNALIST: Shall we define the concessions you mentioned earlier? How about Mr. Rama's visit? The opposition accuses you of silence. What could be more provocative, they say, than having Mr. Rama coming to Galatsi, Greece, and give this speech exactly one year after Mr. Beleri’s arrest and one year before the elections. He himself considers it part of his election campaign. How do you respond to this? Could you have avoided it? Could you have said no?

G. GERAPETRITIS: Let me start with a general observation. We should be strict and maintain integrity in our assessments when it comes to national issues. Ι always carefully examine the opposition’s statements, but I always find that they constitute a denial rather than a position.

Regarding Greek-Turkish relations, I find that everyone agrees that there should be a Greek-Turkish dialogue, but they disagree on the details, which I find difficult to understand. They invent concessions where none exists. I want everything to be clear. We have a clear position. We have received the vote of the Greek people. There is a political mandate, and we will act on it. We will strive to improve Greek-Turkish relations within the framework of fully respecting our sovereignty and sovereign rights. On the other hand, the opposition should finally tell us: Do they want the Greek-Turkish dialogue to proceed? Do they want us to be in discussions? Do they wish to maintain the current state of calm, with no migratory flows, no airspace violations, and a coordinated and planned dialogue?

As regards Albania, I indeed hear the criticism: "Why did he come?" Mr. Rama’s visit was indeed untimely because we are a year away from elections in Albania, while we are just a few days away from the elections in Greece for the European Parliament. However, Greece is a state governed by the rule of law, it is a democracy. Greece will never prohibit a European leader from coming and addressing his Diaspora. I believe this is fundamental to democracy. I myself, like the Prime Minister and all leaders, meet with the Greek Diaspora when we travel abroad. There is no way we would prohibit this communication. Therefore, when the opposition says, "you should have been stricter," do they mean we should have banned Mr. Rama’s entry? The answer is clear: no. We will remain committed to a strict policy of principles and consistent implementation of International Law regardless of the political cost. The Greek government will not make concessions on fundamental issues. So, even if we disagree on the timing, we will always recognize that a foreign leader has the right to address his citizens.

JOURNALIST: I see. Mr. Gerapetritis, thank you very much for the conversation and for being here, especially since we know you arrived late last night from Ankara. We hope to have the opportunity to speak again during the summer. Hopefully, things will improve in our broader neighborhood, generally speaking, as it does not depend solely on us.

G. GERAPETRITIS: I am extremely concerned about developments in the broader region, particularly the Middle East. In the coming days, Greek diplomacy will again take the lead on Middle East issues. In the next few days, I will welcome the Egyptian Foreign Minister to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who is playing a pivotal role in the ongoing discussions to find a sustainable solution. I believe the entire world currently demands a complete ceasefire and humanitarian aid to put an end to this destruction.

JOURNALIST: All the best. Thank you very much.

G. GERAPETRITIS: All the best.

May 14, 2024