The situation in Syria
Our country, like all the EU member
states, without exception, expressed from the outset a position that
emphasizes two major, central points, which are firm aspects of our
policy.
The first is the unequivocal, clear and absolute
condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, condemnation of any attempt
to hinder the work of the UN experts. The need for there to be a clear
response from the international community; a response that will prevent
any repetition of the use of chemical weapons, which is a heinous crime,
a crime against international law, against humanity, which, of course,
creates the need for specific perpetrators to answer to international
criminal justice.
The second point of the Greek stance is that,
whatever the case, the political process must be safeguarded, and that
the solution in Syria can come only through the Geneva II process.
In
all our statements we have said and continue to say that Greece will
honor its obligations, first, as a member state of the UN – thus we
believe in the need for the UN processes – second, as a member state of
the EU and NATO, and third, of course, we do not ignore the obligations
deriving from bilateral agreements that are in force with various
countries on security and defence issues.
In Vilnius, at the
informal Council of Foreign Ministers, the EU expressed – with great
delay, it is true – its agreed position on this issue. It was expressed
by Lady Ashton following in-depth consultation with all the Ministers,
and this common position is exactly what Greece had said from the very
outset. What we have said is also the EU’s stance.
The new
element, the element, that the international community, including the
EU, was waiting for was the Russian initiative with regard to the Assad
regime’s “willingness” to put its chemical arsenal under international
control, to accept the collection, removal and destruction of its
chemical arsenal.
We believe that this process can produce
results. That is, that this initiative can truly succeed if there is a
willingness to de-escalate. And for this initiative to succeed it must
take on specific physical form; that is, the turning over and
destruction of the chemical weapons, and secondly it must lead to
unconditional participation in Geneva II by all parties, including the
Assad regime, so that a mutually acceptable and broadly mandated
transitional solution can be found. With the “pending” issue of those
who are physically and morally responsible being brought before
international criminal justice.
In Syria, Greece needs to follow a
policy of principles, and this is what we have done from the outset. A
policy based on respect for international law, the need to defend human
rights. We cannot close our eyes to abhorrent actions that are a crime
against humanity. The core of our policy must be international legality,
the role of the UN, the role of the Security Council; we must respect
our obligations as a member state of the EU and NATO.
There is a
protective network for Greek citizens in Syria, through the honorary
Consulates, in collaboration with the EU, if evacuation should be
needed. There is ongoing notification, which, in the end, however,
concerns a few dozen interested parties – an impressively small number
of interested parties – and naturally there are all the preparations
with the co-competent Ministries of National Defence, Public Order,
Merchant Marine, Health, Interior regarding a possible wave of refugees
from Syria reaching Greece, but in a second stage. Because the countries
land borders are receiving the great bulk: Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt
via Sinai to a great extent.
As such, I think that this
preparation will pay off, and we have already asked the competent
Commissioners – many competent Commissioners are involved under
Georgieva, who is dealing with the humanitarian aid, in order to fund
our actions on migration and health issues, should the need arise. This
is the picture with regard to Syria.
Developments in Egypt
Egypt
is decisive for Greece with regard to the Eastern Mediterranean.
Bilaterally and on the level of the EU, we initially saw the changes
that took place after 30 June in Egypt as a continuation of the
transitional period that started in 2011, with the fall of the Mubarak
regime. We perceive the situation in all its difficulties, and we think
that the transitional government is making very great efforts to
stabilize the country and lead it to the full functioning of democratic
institutions.
I visited Cairo on 5 September, following the visit
carried out by the Belgian Minister in the framework of his scheduled
visit to the countries of the region, and following the visit to Cairo
two days earlier by Cypriot Foreign Minister Kasoulides. This visit was
of very great significance, because it was a practical show of support
for the Egyptian people and of Greece’s sincere interest in Egypt’s once
again finding a road to peace and prosperity.
We are linked by
historical and profound ties – the Patriarch of Alexandria, the
Monastery of Sinai – in a pivotal region for current developments.
Mainly northern Sinai, but also southern Sinai, where the Monastery is
located, the historical Greek communities in Alexandria, in Cairo, in
Suez, in other cities, the new Greek economic presence in Egypt, which
is very significant. Greece is the fifth largest foreign investor in
Egypt. We have manufacturing units and banks. Of course, we have common
interests.
I must be clear and say to you unequivocally that in
the time leading up to the change of the state of affairs in Egypt there
was inertia and regression in our relations, particularly on the
critical issue of maritime zones and the implementation of the
International Law of the Sea. It is of very great significance that – as
my Egyptian counterpart and I stated publicly after our meeting – we
decided to re-establish and initiate the dialogue on the level of
experts on a bilateral level – with international law as our frame of
reference – so that the maritime zones, the continental shelf and
exclusive economic zone in the Eastern Mediterranean, can be agreed
upon.
It is also very important that we reaffirmed through my
visit, which followed on Mr. Kasoulides’ visit, that, beyond bilateral
relations, we are prepared to move ahead to trilateral cooperation
between Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean on all the
political issues, as well as on anything else that is necessary.
I
had the opportunity to see the interim President of the Republic, the
President of the Constitutional Court, the Prime Minister. We had
in-depth talks with the Foreign Minister and the Delegation. I saw one
of the candidates for President of the Republic in the elections that
were carried out; that is, the head of the Al-Nour party, which is the
large salafist party that got 27% in the parliamentary elections and
that supports the transitional government and is also represented in the
50-member committee for drawing up the Constitution.
I think it
was a very successful visit for our national interests and for the level
of Greek-Egyptian relations, as well as for trilateral Egyptian-
Greek-Cypriot
relations. Within the framework of my visit to Cairo, I met with the
Secretary General of the Arab League, which, as you will have observed,
is playing a very important role in the Syrian crisis. Because the Gulf
countries and Egypt – which met on the level of Foreign Ministers with
Mr. Kerry in Paris the day before yesterday – as well as the Arab League
as a whole, have a very clear line with regard to the response to the
use of chemical weapons and the need for unconditional participation in
Geneva II for a definitive political solution in Syria.
The Middle East peace process
In
Vilnius, the U.S. Secretary of State briefed his European colleagues in
depth on the Middle East peace process. Despite the fact that the major
issue is Syria, and Egypt is major current issue in the Arab view, as
expressed by the Arab League, the big issue is always the conflict in
the Middle East, the Israel-Palestinian relationship and the peace
process, which we support and we want to see produce a plan for a
two-state solution.
Greek-Turkish issues
On Monday, the
55th round of exploratory talks took place between Turkey and Greece –
talks that started in 2002 – on issues concerning maritime zones in the
Aegean. Our positions are clear. We are discussing – and I want to make
this absolutely clear before the Committee – the Aegean and the Eastern
Mediterranean, we are discussing the continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone. That is, all the maritime zones, as provided for by the
International Law of the Sea. This is something that should have always
been clear, but now it is absolutely clear, and I think it is very
important and I stress it in particular. The meeting took place between
the Secretary General of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Mr. Sinirlioğlu,
and Ambassador Apostolidis, who is the head of the Greek delegation on
these issues.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
I met
on Monday with the UN Secretary General’s personal envoy on the FYROM
name issue, Matthew Nimetz, who set out the latest version of his
proposals, because he has been coordinating this process for years – it
has been under way for 18 years, since the Interim Accord went into
effect. Because I had very intense personal participation in the process
leading to the Interim accord and the drawing up of the Interim Accord,
I know how important it is for there to be a frame of reference, and I
expressed Greece’s respect for the Secretary General’s efforts and those
of Mr. Nimetz. It is important to keep this process open and for it to
be substantial.
Our position, as it has been formulated and, I
believe, enjoys broad national consensus, is that we accept a compound
name with a geographical qualifier that refers to the geographical term
of the name and not the political term of the name. We want an erga
omnes solution. That is, a name for all uses, so that there can be a
definitive solution, and so that there is no recrudescence in
international organizations, in meetings, etc. That is, so that there
won’t be an essentially a la carte solution, which would be one name for
one use, another for another use, another for other users, etc.
I
think that the clarity with which we responded and stated our
positions, as well as the analysis we carried out with Mr. Nimetz, will
help a great deal in his talks in Skopje and, subsequently, in our own
meetings on this issue. The follow-up will in all likelihood take place
in New York City, during the last week of September.
September 11, 2013