G. MELINGONIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we have the pleasure and the great honour of hosting, here in the studio, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikos Kotzias, on a particularly crucial day. Good morning Minister.
N. KOTZIAS: Thank you very much for the invitation, and I must tell you that this is one of my favourite studios. I am amazed by the many changes you have made, not just you but everything I see, as a whole.
G. MELINGONIS: Thank you.
N. KOTZIAS: May you and the studio, and the station, be a success.
G. MELINGONIS: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for accepting our invitation on a very crucial day, on which the first question can be none other than, “what is going on? Have we got an agreement?”
N. KOTZIAS: I think that today we took the decisive step, and tomorrow the two Prime Ministers will speak again and conclude the discussion they began today.
G. MELINGONIS: It is in all honesty that I ask you, because, as you know, over the previous four days, we have seen fYROM flip-flopping.
N. KOTZIAS: Look, in classes at the University and all the way up to the Ministry itself, I always say that negotiations are not a straight line, i.e. we took off and we're running a 42 kilometre Marathon. It is a laborious struggle with its ups and downs, its difficulties, and this is why I recommend to everyone - and I say this also for those participating in the negotiations, as well as for those who judge us - patience and sobriety.
The issue is to have the will to solve the problems. Because there are people in Greece who like two things: The first is inertia: for nothing to be done, believing that if you do nothing, everything will be okay. Life has proven, with regard to the personality of each individual as well as foreign policy, that other forces fill the vacuum. In other words, friendly countries have come into play in the Balkans - Italy, Austria, etc. - but so has Turkey, and so on and so forth.
And second, they have a theory about pending issues, in other words let's have unfinished business "let's leave all business unfinished." This is a sign of timid individuals, who know something well, and I must say it because my Foreign Minister colleagues tell me this also, those of Skopje and Albania; they tell me, "Up to now, we have seen that if we do nothing and say nothing, no one judges us. As soon as we begin to make an agreement or to overcome a major problem, everyone attacks us, "because these are the forces of inertia and deferment, as I say.
G. MELINGONIS: In any case, there was an entire School of diplomacy based on this: "leave things be, don’t touch anything, let things take their own course."
N. KOTZIAS: This was a School of negating diplomacy, because there was no recourse to any diplomacy since things were left untouched. In other words, it’s like a team being relegated and saying, “Never mind.” Have you seen those teams that are relegated by four entire divisions? That’s it.
G. MELINGONIS: Now, you said quite rightly that the negotiations are not linear. Apart from fYROM, does this also pertain to us? In other words, from the message sent by the Prime Minister's Office last Friday, and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of course, that whatever had to be said has already been said, and that this period of reflection for fYROM must draw to a close, which you said also. Is this valid, or has something changed with regard to the Greek side?
N. KOTZIAS: We are firmly in favour of a solution. We put our hand on our hearts and said, "Whatever difficulties may lie in a solution, this is what is in our country's best interest." Why is it in the best interest of our country? Because, first of all, this country is our neighbour. It needs to interact beneficially to the peoples in the region. Secondly, it is good, now that we are emerging from the financial crisis, for the entire region to be influenced towards development, which will also strengthen our own growth. And thirdly, as I always say, we truly do have problems of identity, culture and cultural heritage with our friendly neighbour country. But these problems are of lesser importance than the major geopolitical and geostrategic ones we have with Turkey. Consequently, the time has now come for Greek diplomacy, and for the Greek political scene, to decide what the country’s major problem is, which problem must be resolved, which one can be solved to the benefit of both sides. And I would like to stress "to the benefit of both sides,” because some people think that we can solve the problems, as if we have waged some war and were victorious, having crushed the other side. When you achieve a total victory, and this was proven by the outcome of World War I, you give rise to revisionist tendencies where whatever they were forced to accept, they shall refuse at the first opportunity. That is why we emphasised from the outset that we want an agreement that will be able to withstand the test of time and be accepted by the peoples. I am aware that both sides have difficulties, but in the end they shall accept it.
G. MELINGONIS: In other words, you are saying that if you tried to humble Mr Zaev, Greece would find it down the road, because the next in charge would come and undo what was agreed to?
N. KOTZIAS: Correct. And not only that, but why would the other side agree with us if it doesn’t also receive something in return? In other words, here we don’t have a situation in which we either win or we lose based on whether the other side wins or loses. Here, we have to come up with a win-win agreement that is beneficial for both sides.
G. MELINGONIS: I ask you this because many people say, "They are eager to join NATO and the European Union. Let’s just tell them ‘take it or leave it. This is it. Take it or leave it’” and for us not to move an inch.
N. KOTZIAS: I think that too many people in Greek society, because we have been oppressed in the past by strong foreign factors, are taking it out on the “little guy”. I belong to a different school of thought. I say that I don’t want to do the same things I was subject to. In other words, I don’t want to treat a smaller country in the same manner which I didn’t like at all, a manner in which others behaved towards us. I want to make a friend of this state. I want to have people of fYROM coming -and you might know that every citizen of fYROM comes about twice a year- to Greece to shop, on holiday- and how eagerly they are awaited in Thessaloniki for shopping.
G. MELINGONIS: You should see how things are in Chalkidki!
N. KOTZIAS: And then they come out rallying: “We don’t want them and we don't recognise them." As I say, sometimes in these countries, in fYROM and Albania, the paradox exists where they wake up in the morning, they listen to Greek music and dance, then they go to work and curse us. Then, they go and eat at a Greek fast food restaurant in their city. They like Greek souvlaki. They think about Greek habits. They think about a holiday to Greece. Then they go home again...and curse us again. In other word, there are these contradictions which are part of human nature. This has to do with the culture and identity of each and every one of us. But those engaged in foreign policy - whether it be the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister - what they want to do is to solve problems for the country. Do you know how many times I have wanted to come out publicly and voice my frustration? To tell someone off? But you have to control yourself. You must think in the long term. I understand people who react. Who fear losing their identity - which there is no danger of. I understand them, but they are not right at all. I will recount the following event. A few days ago, in the neighbourhood where I live, a woman comes and tells me, "Mr Kotzias, don’t sign." I say, "What shouldn’t I sign?”. She says, "The agreement with Skopje.” "Why, Madam, should I not sign?" "Because they will take Thessaloniki!". I told a friend of mine, a colleague at the office, and he tells me, "Stupidity is unconquerable.” As if we would make any agreement with this friendly country either to take Skopje or to give up Thessaloniki. We made the agreement to look towards the future, so that, while defending history, we are not held prisoner by history.
And I would like to tell you that, as regards history, one of the things that is clarified - and you will see this - is the issues of irredentism and questions of history. The agreement makes it obvious and clear that the friendly country of Skopje, with the name it shall bear, has no intention of defending the irredentism of Gruevski - who belongs to the same political family as New Democracy, let’s not fool ourselves- nor does it have any intention of claiming historical origins and heritage that do not belong to them.
Let me give you an example. In the language, which they have established as early as 1977 as the “Macedonian language”, what the agreement will say, and what has been agreed to, and the friendly country’s Foreign Minister himself has also said this publicly, is that it will be stipulated that this language is in no way related to ancient Greek. It claims no heritage or anything that has to do with ancient Macedonia and Greek Macedonia, and that it is a language that belongs to the Slavic languages family. I consider this sincerity, clarity. They are seeking to forge their identity, but with the agreement, they are saying, "Our identity is something other than ancient Greek, other than Greek," other than our Macedonia.
G. MELINGONIS: What you are saying is important, because the information over the past few hours on the basis also of some report was that, in the original agreement, it is stated that the language is of Slavic origin, the ethnic group etc. Last night, some other phrasings were found and the negotiations came to a standstill.
N. KOTZIAS: No, not at all.
G. MELINGONIS: Will there be, as KONTRA News had also reported on Sunday, a clear provision that it is a Slavic race?
N. KOTZIAS: I don’t know where KONTRA News Sunday got it from, but it was correct. And it is clear that the population considers itself and self-determines as belonging to the geographical region of Macedonia, which that country has. It is clear that there is no relationship with the ancient culture, unless they happen to love and appreciate the latter, as do hundreds of nations around the world, and that their language belongs to the Slavic languages. And let me state, in response to your question, from the very first weeks that an agreement was created, that it had been agreed to; namely, that "Yes, indeed you have the right to self-determination, but this must be done with clarity, that this has nothing to do with all those things that Gruevski was talking about," in other words the friends of New Democracy.
G. MELINGONIS: Indeed. On the table we are dealing with the remaining names from the Nimetz package, in other words Greece has rejected the “Vardarska Makedonija" …
N. KOTZIAS: Not us.
G. MELINGONIS: Sorry yes, we have rejected "Macedonia - Skopje.” FYROM has rejected "Vardarska," and “Severna", "Gorna” and the "Nova” have remained - "Upper," "North," "New?"
N. KOTZIAS: So it is, but it is obvious that if the discussion of two Prime Ministers is concluded tomorrow, the selection of a name shall also be concluded.
G. MELINGONIS: Will it be concluded, or will there be three and they shall use them all, or the other side can put them to a referendum, for it to be chosen by the people?
N. KOTZIAS: It will be completed because he has chosen which of those names he wants. He has already done this. He has chosen, and all I can say is that when I read the minutes of the negotiations conducted by previous Governments, one Minister in the previous government says, "This is the best name, because it has such and such benefits.”
G. MELINGONIS: In other words, it is not a name that is up for interpretation as to the extent to which it is temporal or geographical.
N. KOTZIAS: No, not at all. It is clear, just as our policy is also clear.
G. MELINGONIS: In fact, out of the three, only two remain, as I understand.
N. KOTZIAS: Quite simply what is not clear, and what I wish to repeat, is the following: New Democracy, which is wagging its finger at me -and I must say it, because I don’t come out too often - this is the fourth, fifth interview that I have granted all year - regardless of whether the previous one was only a few days ago - New Democracy has been in power, since this country has come into existence, for ten years with seven Ministers. These Ministers, as I have read, and I am an avid and careful reader, as you know, they have provided two names each, in other words 14-15 names let’s say. We have been asking for days now, I personally am asking: Let New Democracy itself tell us - I do not wish to provoke them, let them tells us themselves: what names have they negotiated, and which one do they choose? And here I note the following amazing phenomenon: they are not telling us! Now they are not telling us. And I would like to say that there can only be three reasons for this. One reason is that they are ashamed of the ones they have negotiated. I can understand that. I believe that this plays a role in it. But I am sure this is not the only thing involved. The second is that they don’t know. They are unsure, among themselves, about what they have negotiated. Because New Democracy, which alleges that we supposedly conduct secret diplomacy... Have you ever seen secret diplomacy with photographs of the Secretary-General of the UN? Secret diplomacy means that you hide in a little house on some island.
G. MELINGONIS: Or you send an agent to the border, to put it that way -
N. KOTZIAS: Or the head of your National Intelligence Service to negotiate, as has been done in the past by New Democracy.
G. MELINGONIS: Yes.
N. KOTZIAS: The second is that they do not know, and they are unsure about what they have said at different times, and this is the information that I have. And the third is that they do not understand diplomacy. I heard a frontline New Democracy official saying, "What if we said some extra name, for example "Macedonia - Skopje" as an international name and plain "Macedonia" for domestic use...” thus all the derivatives arise from this: language, ethnic origin, nationality, citizenship, "… we did this just for fun, little tricks". But, take care now, the international player can hear us now and is assessing the country, and he'd saying, “what kind of country is this that is coming out and saying publicly that we have conducted the negotiation as a joke? How serious can this country be, which negotiates and then says, 'I was not negotiating. It was just games'." Diplomacy bears too much responsibility -because it is responsible for the future of our entire land and our people- for one to allow it to fall again into the hands of those who considered it to be jokes and games.
Therefore, all three must be applicable. A portion of New Democracy is ashamed of the period they negotiated, another portion is both ashamed and does not know what occurred, and a third says to you, "Whatever may have occurred, whatever I may have to be ashamed of, I turn foreign policy into a big joke." Absolutely not! Jokes are to be made with friends at the pub. Jokes are not for foreign policy, and indeed not about the country’s fundamental, key issues or about its future. We do not play around. Nor do we describe our negotiations as a game.
G. MELINGONIS: Minister, you said earlier that a clear provision exists that both the language and the ethnicity originate from the Slavs.
N. KOTZIAS: The ethnicity does not originate solely from the Slavs. I would like to tell you the following: In fYROM today, they consider their ethnicity to be the entire population. In other words, they are Albanians and Vlachs…
G. MELINGONIS: Yes, because it is a mosaic of ethnic groups, the truth is.
N. KOTZIAS: And it is not just the Slavomacedonians, but it is all those groups. Consequently, as an ethnic group, they identify those who live in present-day fYROM with a specific geographical status, but who, either one portion or the other (Albanians or Slavomacedonians) have no relationship at all - other than the fact that they may love it or respect it and I have no problem with that- with ancient Greek culture, antiquity, and Greek Macedonian identity. This is important
Let me clarify something, please. This geographical area of Macedonia that I am talking about, this is an area which was split up in 1913 - as I said during another interview - by the Treaty of Bucharest, which we did not conclude. In this Treaty of Bucharest, a very small portion went to Albania, where Slavomacedonians and Bulgarians are currently fighting over whether they are Bulgarians or Slavomacedonians. They were even fighting over this issue this morning. A portion of approximately 1/6 went to Bulgaria, a portion of around 1/3 went to the current FYROM, and more than half is Greek Macedonia. We are talking about geographical identification, and for a population that has formed what science calls an “imaginary emblem” for itself, that it constitutes one nation -all these different components of it which live in Macedonia. But then Gruevski’s irredentism came along, which said "Ah, not only are we a geographical determination and a people, but we are the legacy of Alexander the Great. We’ve gotten past this.
I want you to note the following: From the moment it is obvious that we are past this, some people act as if this plays no role, as if this never existed.
G. MELINGONIS: Therefore, it will be in the agreement that fYROM is divorcing itself from the unhistorical claims concerning Alexander the Great.
N. KOTZIAS: And from the irredentism.
G. MELINGONIS: And from the irredentism. Will there be the quantifying adjective "Macedonian" either with regard to the language or ethnic group, or both?
N. KOTZIAS: Determination and self-determination exist. The Macedonian language, let me say it again, has existed since 1977, in the UN, and because various people are distributing various documents, I tell them the following: our Ambassador at the time - in other words what is known as the Permanent Representative, because it is not a country but an international organisation - our Permanent Representative to the UN and subsequent Secretary-General sends a telegram during a period of government by New Democracy, in November 2010, and he says: "Today I went to the UN Secretariat and complained - the man did the right thing - about name of the language "Macedonian."
Because on the UN’s official chart - everyone is playing dumb, but this is the truth - for the country which is fYROM where it says language, just like it says for every country - what the name of the country is, what the its language is etc. - it says “Macedonian,” and Mrs. Spehar, who is the UN representative in Cyprus today - at the time, she was responsible for Southeast Europe and Western Europe. She says, "Forget about it, because it has been established since 1977 - the despatch says it, and let them not provoke me - the Macedonian language, and nobody came to protest at the UN, until 2010, and until today.
G. MELINGONIS: So from the moment that a fait accompli has been created, it will exist in the agreement.
N. KOTZIAS: Greece's misfortune is that it did not have a leftist government at the time when the problem arose. The problem arose, festered, 140 countries refer to this state as "Macedonia" and have recognized it with its current constitutional name as "Macedonia." This name is on every international channel, in all international newspapers, and they act as if it didn’t exist and we come across this name and, oh no! What a crime we have committed! Just like, in addition, since 1993, Greece has essentially agreed to a compound name, and all governments, all those which did not make such great concessions, in other words of going with plain "Macedonia," spoke for recognition of the name to include "Macedonia," but as a compound name. Today suddenly the Main Opposition Party, let’s say, is coming out and saying, “We don’t want a compound name." These things, they should not be saying them to me, they should tell them to their former Ministers, to their former Prime Ministers, to the people who determined the fate of the party. Because the only ones to disagree with the compound name of Macedonia was the extreme right, including LAOS, and certain politicians such as Mr Εvert. However, the decisions of this party, in its foreign policy when it was a government -forget what it says when it is in the opposition- as it also said when it participated in governments, what it sought, as a best-case scenario, was a compound name for external relations, for international relations. It did not require that this compound name also be constitutionally guaranteed and for it to be applied on an erga omnes basis, in other words, common use in all treaties. If you read the despatches of the era, they always say "common international use", in other words "erga omnes" for international use. And the Constitution? We shall ask for it, but we shall will not insist because it is not possible.
G. MELINGONIS: We shall get to the issue of the Constitution, but I simply insist on asking about the issue of Macedonia, etc. for one reason, because I imagine you have heard, and I would like for you to comment on it, what they say, that even if all the countries in the world speak of "Macedonia" or "the Macedonian language or ethnicity," the issue is for Greece not to “let them have it.”
N. KOTZIAS: Yes, but Greece doesn’t give or take the "Macedonian language"...
G. MELINGONIS: You say the UN granted it to them.
N. KOTZIAS: The UN grants it in our absence, in our failure to react. ISO also grants it to them. In other words, the International Organization that establishes names, codes, abbreviations and acronyms. And, to repeat, for three years ISO negotiated on how to put across the new names from the Soviet Union that broke up into 15 Republics, and from Yugoslavia, which broke up into 7 Republics, and we were not there to defend Greek interests. Whatever anyone may say now, or however they may try to come out of this situation with their nose clean, I don’t care. I would also like to say that when we have come away with the end of irredentism, recognition of the border, the end of the theories that existed in this country that we have minorities here, erga omnes, which I imagine will exist in the end- or the changes in the legislative system that we referred to, that they, too, will have come away with something. And what do they come away with? They come away with what they have already secured. If anybody thinks they are going to hold negotiations with Skopje, in which Skopje will not come away with nothing and we shall come away with everything we want, then they are deluded into thinking that we have won a world war or a regional war and that we can impose our will onto others.
G. MELINGONIS: Minister, as far as what they will come away with, and what exactly erga omnes means, and the entire timetable for the agreement, we will be back to talk about this after the commercial break.
BREAK
G. MELINGONIS: We stopped at "erga omnes". How is this ensured? Would you like to tell us a bit about the timetable for the whole process?
N. KOTZIAS: I think that we should talk about these things tomorrow when discussions between the Prime Ministers will be concluded. Listen, there are two ways in which the phrase "erga omnes" has been used in these negotiations over the past 25 years. "Erga omnes" means for all uses. Which has been the case to date, it was for all international uses. The following debate existed: There was a proposal where one name would exist solely for relations between Greece and Skopje and, for everything else, for the constitutional name to be used: "Republic of Macedonia". Then it was said that the name had to go to the UN. There was agreement numerous times on the part of the Greek side...
G. MELINGONIS: For two names
N. KOTZIAS: For a double international name. For one name to exist for the UN and for us, and a different one for inter-state relations. So Greek diplomacy very often said, Mr. Zacharakis let's say, fought for it to be for common international use; in other words for its use to be the same with regard to Greece and other countries, in international Organisations as well as internationally.
G. MELINGONIS: Is this guaranteed with the agreement?
N. KOTZIAS: They called this "erga omnes". But this was incorrect. Because this corresponds to "erga ‘international’ omnes,” in other words for common international use. True "erga omnes" is that the same name must be used internationally as well as within a state. In other words, for this madness of two different names not to exist . Why? We live in an age of globalization. And in this age of globalization, all things that are in circulation domestically also circulate internationally.
G. MELINGONIS: I mean excuse me, but if the Municipality of Bitola sends a document to the Municipality of Skopje, will it have "Republic of Gorna Makedonija" written on it, assuming that tomorrow we should agree on this? Won’t it say "Republic of Macedonia" or "Ceverna"?
N. KOTZIAS: Tomorrow this may indeed be written on it, but, within the time period we agree upon, it may just say "Municipality of Bitola" or, should they wish to add the name of the country, they will have to write “X - Macedonia".
G. MELINGONIS: So we have erga omnes not only for international use, but also within fYROM.
N. KOTZIAS: I would like to give you an example. A passport is an international document. Passports must bear the name that we agreed to, one which is beneficial for both sides. It is a good name for them, as well as for us. Now we come to the identity card. Identity cards, 40-50 years ago, were domestic documents. Today, with an identity card, you can travel to 47 European countries, most of these, 28-29 of them, are EU Member States. My same friends from Skopje can travel to Albania and Serbia with their identity card. Suddenly, you see a piece of paper, a document that was for domestic use, being used internationally as well. Thus, the differentiation "international document-passport" and "domestic document-identity card" is no longer there. I think this was taken into account. And it was taken into account in such a way as to respect the identity of the citizens of the friendly country to the North, to take into account the accession schedules for the organizations they wish to join. We do not tell them which organisations to join, at the same time, also, erga omnes. That is to say that, when everything is said and done, there may be two different names. Because it is madness. Can I tell you something? You travel abroad with your identity card. As soon as I see you leaving the country with your identity card which says "Republic of Macedonia” on it and not "Republic of X-Macedonia,” I immediately start crying foul that you are travelling abroad with a document, and you say “but it's a domestic document...” We do not want this agreement to result in drawn out friction in our everyday lives. We will have failed to solve the problem.
G. MELINGONIS: It is non-viable agreement.
N. KOTZIAS: The PM does not want, I do not personally want a solution which would not be able to withstand the test of time. We want a solution that will withstand the test of time, that will demonstrate the advantages and benefits to both nations. Some are taken aback and upset that I say: “the benefits of both nations.” But this nation is not our enemy. This is a nation that loves us, with its paradoxes I mentioned to you earlier. I am not talking about every politico who wants to sow irredentism. I am talking about the average man in the street whom we want to bring closer to us. And can I tell you something? Let someone provide us with the statistics, how many people from Northern Greece - I am not judging them - go to gamble at the casino in Skopje? How much money is wagered every day? I know these things. Let's not pretend we don't know these things. Relations do exist between the societies of both countries. Daily relations exist in the summer, friendly relations exist, there are even marriages, romances.
G. MELINGONIS: So, when you say for friction not to exist, this means that the new name, in addition to their identity cards, will be added to their Constitution, I assume, right? This exists in the agreement. I mean as a provision to the Agreement.
N. KOTZIAS: Let me put it my way: we have solved the constitutional issue. And let me tell you what I find exciting. I am excited about the prospect of also solving the problem of the name of the Church in Skopje, which as you know was known as the “Macedonian Orthodox Church," and in this whole atmosphere and climate that has been created, at the initiative of the citizens of Skopje themselves, and their own political leadership, I assume, if I have correctly read what our Patriarch says, this Church will be named "Archbishopric of Ohrid", which is a historical name that this Church has borne for centuries. I think that, as you can see, they changed the name of the airport. From "Alexander the Great," it became "International Airport." The name of the motorway that links Greece with Skopje was changed; from “Alexander the Great Avenue,” it took an exceptionally beautiful name that they themselves selected: “Friendship Avenue.” We opened the way for them to join the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative, we consented to the second phase of the cooperation with the European Union; this is something different from their accession. We are taking measures on both sides to further develop our relationship. And we have many common interests. I think that, although I believe that we are now solving the problem with this country, we shall begin cooperating more closely, the region’s closest partners. We have nothing to fear, in other words.
Fear is being sown with regard to a state which today has neither fighter planes, nor tanks, nor armoured vehicles. They have two or three old helicopters. They are attempting to survive, with decency. They are attempting, with decency, to find their European path, the path towards prosperity for the country.
G. MELINGONIS: What safeguards do we have as a country? I do not mean in terms of intention, etc., that Mr. Zaev will be unable, let’s say, to garner a majority in order to revise the constitution, or that he will not win the referendum. Will the vote take place in Parliament, for approval of the agreement, the last step, as you also said last Monday?
N. KOTZIAS: Our own Parliament is keeping track of the internal procedures of that country. With all due respect, because it is they who need the procedures to launch their own procedures with the European Union and NATO, whereas we, when they have finished, must ratify in order for the agreement which we consider good to take effect.
G. MELINGONIS: Therefore, on the timetable, on the 25th of the month, when the Summit is due to take place, I suppose that Greece will say, if all goes well tomorrow...
N. KOTZIAS: On the 25th of the month, two weeks from today, there is a Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs which shall decide.
G. MELINGONIS: On the accession course of the Western Balkans.
N. KOTZIAS: No, at the Summit 4 days later. There, provided that we have ratification by their Parliament - and I hope we do - as well as ratification of the issues that we have with Albania, we will give our "OK" with great joy, for them to travel down the path towards European accession. And indeed, if -and I believe that tomorrow we shall finish, we have solved all the problems, we must assist and support these countries on their path towards European accession. First of all because we are friends, and we have no second thoughts about them. We are not a country that wants to exploit them. And secondly because we must forge a common course today, so that a group of Balkan states can exist within the European Union of 40 Member States and play an active role. Because they, too, have realised that nobody is able to play this role on their own.
G. MELINGONIS: Ten days later, on 11, 12 July, when the NATO Summit is due to take place, has this milestone been missed?
N. KOTZIAS: No, that is to take place after the 25th.
G. MELINGONIS: Afterwards, yes.
N. KOTZIAS: If there is something that I don’t see them having time for, of missing, that is it.
G. MELINGONIS: I am asking you because many people say that if Greece gives NATO the green light and then there is a hitch with the agreement, we won’t be able to take it back. That’s why I’m asking you.
N. KOTZIAS: That is not the case. That is incorrect.
G. MELINGONIS: Can we clarify this?
N. KOTZIAS: NATO, what it will extend on the 11-12th, at the Summit -if it does extend it- but what it can extend and what is planned, if all goes well for it to be able to extend it, is an invitation. This invitation requires ratification afterwards, by all the States. And the invitation will be extended on the condition that everything will be done that needs to be done so that such an agreement can be ratified. Because it is not we who are telling them whether or not to go to NATO, so that we make ourselves clear. It is they themselves who are choosing to go, and we are not preventing them from doing so.
G. MELINGONIS: So, as I understand it, even if, on the 11-12th of the month, Greece does give the green light, and then something goes wrong with the agreement, accession of the fYROM to NATO will not be ratified by the Hellenic Parliament. Correct?
N. KOTZIAS: Let me put it differently. It may not be the Hellenic Parliament. Should they fail to observe the conditions under which the invitation will be extended, the process will not be completed. If they respond, which is up to them, they want this, so why should they not respond, I say - it will be completed. I think that the prospect of the European Union mainly, and to a certain extent the security of NATO, are the incentives that push them to negotiate with us.
And even though they accuse me of showing understanding towards them, I want to tell you something: It is not easy to change names. And throughout history, the one I am familiar with at least, with the exception of the relationship between Austria and Germany, there is no country that has changed its name on the basis of an agreement with a third country. I know of countries that change their names, because they convert them from the international name to their commonly used name, in their language. I know of countries that change their name in order to provide themselves with a better character. I know of countries that break away from third countries and assume the name they bore as a region of this third country. But a country that has the boldness and the courage to change its constitutional name, the name used in its international relations, and to take the initiative on its own to say: "what is this name that we want to have, how will it be diffused internationally,” this requires a great deal of courage. And this is no small thing. Some people suddenly consider everything easier when it comes to third parties. Let us take any international conflict, from Israel-Palestine to Rwanda-Uganda, and you will notice that, though to us everything seems easy and we say: "Why don't they settle things, alas?” But for the parties involved, it is a very difficult task. Because there is the historical weight involved. They are bound by prejudices, stereotypes, opposition parties that act like they don’t understand. The step for a country to change its name is a bold one. And I’m not saying that anyone should feel sorry for them, because this is a very respectable nation, but rather that this courage to be recognised. Why is it that they are taking this bold step? Because they want to join the European Union. Do we want them to be part of Europe, or do we want them looking Eastward, their Albanian element shall we say, from the national pride and dignity they feel, to become Islamists and religious fundamentalists?
Because some people feel that we should "let this process evolve and not bother.” I will give you an example that we are very interested in. In the Article - these are entire chapters - on irredentism, we are planning on establishing a Committee to review books, so they do not contain irredentism. Ours have no problem. Let them review them. Theirs do. Do we care that they contain irredentism? In other words, does irredentism simply bother us? That’s not it. For 12 years, Mr. Gruevski, sister party to the gentlemen of New Democracy, of Mr. Mitsotakis, was teaching the younger generations in Macedonia, in other words an entire generation that left kindergarten and reached university, they were teaching them that there are enemies in Greece, that a “Greater Macedonia" exists. They say nothing about the division of Macedonia, the geographical area, through the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913, which our history books correctly mention. They claim that a "Greater Macedonia" existed, and we went and maimed it and they must get it back. This is irredentism.
If we allow this to continue, in other words for future generations to be taught these things, we would then have a nation to the north that will have taught its youth to be hostile, with a view of history according to which we are the enemy, we want to ravage them and take back the remaining patch of land, or to conquer them.
Aren't we interested in that country’s youth being educated on the basis of friendship, love, as was the ancient Greek philosophy, with a love of good neighbourly relations that we are cultivating at this very moment? Do we want them looking towards Turkey, hostile towards Greece? I ask you. And what about the supposed patriots who say they basically don’t care about what they do? Do we want to continue to have this course of events, for a hostile country to be created right over our heads?
No. And today we and they want to live in peace.
G. MELINGONIS: Minister, tomorrow, Mr. Kammenos has a press conference. And, although I know it's your job and the Prime Minister's to sit on the NATO Council in order to give the green light to fYROM, if everything goes well, then Mr. Kammenos will have to sit with the Minister of Defence, his counterpart, of the neighbouring country. How can this be done with the disagreement that exists?
N. KOTZIAS: I think Mr. Kammenos has a disagreement on the nomenclature, he has no disagreement as to how NATO operates. Because fYROM, Skopje, came to some NATO meetings. Not now, with our government, but in the past. Since when? Since they participated in a special expeditionary force in the Afghan war. And they are part of the NATO troops - we did well not to send any, we only have a few officers there, from the past - they are part of the NATO troops and are, therefore, part of the table. I do not think it will be the first time that we will meet a minister from this country in NATO. So we should not say absurd things that supposedly did not exist. They did exist. This relationship will simply take on a different nature.
G. MELINGONIS: In your opinion, if Mr. Kammenos does not support, does not vote for the agreement, can he remain a Minister? You know that the opposition is already putting forth an issue of parliamentary majority; they say that it is not possible for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to say yes to an agreement when the Minister of Defence says no to it.
N. KOTZIAS: When they were governing, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said no. Mr. Samaras to Mr. Mitsotakis. And Mr. Mitsotakis stayed. Mr. Samaras left. And when Mr. Samaras left, do you remember what happened in New Democracy?
G. MELINGONIS: The party was split.
N. KOTZIAS: No. There was the group of three if you remember. Mr. Evert, Mr. Kanellopoulos and Mr. Dimas, who were against the solution of the Macedonian issue. And Mr. Evert, if I remember well, became President of New Democracy.
G. MELINGONIS: At that time, the government had 150 MPs, 150 and Katsikis. Now things are a bit different. What majority is needed for it to pass?
N. KOTZIAS: Excuse me, so I say that what we have here is the phenomenon that within the same party there have been much stronger contradictions and in a worse way than in a government of two different parties, where Mr. Kammenos expresses his different thoughts in a very decent way, in a very noble way, I would say, because he believes it firmly.
So as I said in my previous interview, which was in December if I remember well, or in January this year, that the issue in Parliament is not the majority of the parties, because today, too, our government consists of two parties and is opposed by triple the number of parties. The problem is the majority of MPs and I told you then that, as I am aware of the country's political scene as well as the parties and their principles, there will be a majority of MPs who will support such a solution. New Democracy speaks of- I also hear what a lot of new people who have no experience of politics say - about the battle for democracy in politics. They may not have so much experience. I'm not saying they are democratic, but they have no experience. They say, "But how will the government manage if it is not voted through by the two government parties?" No, a government is based on the majority of the Parliament. If the majority in the Parliament is in favour of this solution, is it lawful? Is it constitutional? Is it democratic? What is the rule in Parliament? Does the Rule state the majority of parties or the majority of MPs?
And if New Democracy does not like the majority of MPs, all they have to do is call for a vote of confidence in the Government and see what they are worth.
G. MELINGONIS: I understand that you are betting on the left-wing MPs. On some, not all.
N. KOTZIAS: I don't bet on anyone. I listen to Mr. Theocharopoulos, who is the leader of DIMAR, I listen to Mr. Theodorakis, who addresses these problems head on - we may disagree on other things, but I really appreciate his attitude. And counting them, there is already a majority in Parliament. I think that a large part of the party Kinima Allagis, will also support it. Because Kinima Allagis has six leaders. Four of these, that is, Mr. Kaminis and Mr. Papandreou, have clearly stated that they will support a solution. But even Ms. Gennimata, although I understand that she feels some conflicts, some difficulties, some doubt, says she will vote if the agreement is good.
With my heart alive and my soul present, I would also like to say: no PASOK government ever managed to bring a better agreement. If they want a good agreement, and our agreement is better than what they considered good, I do not see why they should not support it.
G. MELINGONIS: On the other hand, one could blame you, or in any case, how would you respond to something that a New Democracy member might say, that you are threatening with confidential documents...
N. KOTZIAS: What confidential documents? Today, in a New Democracy newspaper, of the hard core of the party, I saw confidential documents with which they attempted to embellish their image. What am I threatening?
G. MELINGONIS: In any case, what a New Democracy member might state is: first you threaten us, you verbally abuse us, you try to highlight the contradictions and then you ask for our consent. Does all this happen at the same time?
N. KOTZIAS: First of all, I do not abuse. I seem to be verbally abused.
G. MELINGONIS: Yes, I'm speaking metaphorically.
N. KOTZIAS: Yes, but I am literally abused. They say "remnants of communism", "traitor" and so on. I do not swear, I have never sworn at a political rival, ever. I have been horribly sworn at, especially while being a Minister. Secondly, I never blackmail. The question is, why do they feel they are being blackmailed? Isn't the UN, who mediated, aware of what the Governments of New Democracy and PASOK agreed on and negotiated? Because these are historical documents. They are aware.
G. MELINGONIS: Okay, it is just that when you say, "if I reveal the Ministry's documents..." one may think it sounds somewhat threatening.
N. KOTZIAS: Doesn't fYROM know? Everyone knows. I will not reveal them to avoid making our country a laughing stock.
G. MELINGONIS: Will you reveal them if you are challenged?
N. KOTZIAS: If they continue to call me a traitor, because I say "A+2", I will not say "Be nice!" to those who said "A-10". At the moment I say, "I have given you things and I am giving you a great opportunity, I am not threatening you. If you are too embarrassed and if you know - because they are the ones who proceeded with secret diplomacy - you should give us the names you recommended and also tell us which one you prefer." Old classmates sit around and say, "I used to like these two boys in our class, these two or three girls and I was in love with this one." Why are they too ashamed to state their solution, the one they liked most and were in love with, the one they flirted with? Why do they feel threatened when I ask, "Tell us: Have you ever proposed Macedonia-Skopje with the name Macedonia for internal use? I am asking you, have you ever said that?" Ms. Bakogianni says they have never said it. I have a question: does she want to say it in order to challenge me to reveal the documents or does she not know it? I believe the first is more likely than the second.
I say: "Be nice. You cannot pretend to be innocents who never made any suggestions or agreements". Because we can read, you know, there are documents. That is, I find it quite audacious to have said "A-5" and then say that "A+10" is treason. I find it audacious, and if they want, we can put everything out on the table. That's what I tell them. I do not provoke them that I will reveal the documents, I challenge them to stop lying.
G. MELINGONIS: Let's talk a bit about Greek-Turkish issues. We see that Turkey's rhetoric is steadily escalating, and we do not know how worried you are that we are basically seeing all Turkish politicians unfolding a pre-electoral campaign where they are making the most of the attack on Greece.
N. KOTZIAS: If you follow what I have been saying, I said six months ago and also two years ago, that the big problem for us is that Turkey has a political opposition which is no better than Erdogan's government, and that Erdogan is a more structured, charismatic personality than them. Because all the issues about the Aegean islands were started by the opposition and I think this is a problem. The second thing I would like to say is that we are not the only ones who wonder. All international players and especially international players in the West, small and large, are wondering what he is trying to accomplish. I think everyone is waiting for the elections to take place and see the result, because Turkey's stability will depend on it, and also how irritated the potential winners will be, and then we will see.
What I said earlier also applies here: the Turkish side often challenges me. Greek diplomacy is careful with its words because we are serious, sober and patient. We are not roosters trying to start a fight. Politicians have arguments on morning shows and they do well to do so, as well as on Parliament premises, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs must choose his words carefully regarding third countries. I hope that democracy will work in Turkey, that they will have genuine democratic elections, that the person who the Turkish people want and love will be elected, and that those elected in the presidential and the parliamentary elections will demonstrate sobriety and composure. And that the events that cause concern regarding their restlessness and revisionism will cease.
G. MELINGONIS: For some time now, we have seen - from your academic work and your articles before SYRIZA became Government - that you always try to look across Europe. We have a xenophobic Far Right wing, call it whatever you wish, as one of the two key partners in Italy, in Slovenia, which has no immigrants, and where the main slogan of the candidate who won was that no immigrant or refugee would get in. In Austria the associations you know of and the whole anti-European and populist environment, Malta refuses to accept refugees from Italy...
N. KOTZIAS: I think Spain took them in the end.
G. MELINGONIS: Yes.
N. KOTZIAS: At the other end!
G. MELINGONIS: Where is all this leading? Does it worry you that the old...
N. KOTZIAS: I am not a journalist to say I'm worried or not worried about something. I do not underestimate your profession, I value it - but my job is different. My job is to find solutions.
G. MELINGONIS: How do you assess the change in European power relations?
N. KOTZIAS: We have created 16 new international formats. For the first time, Greece has large and diverse alliances. For example, next Thursday and Friday we have the 3rd Rhodes Conference, which is a conference to promote security and stability of the region. There are 22 participants, most of them Arab and Southern European countries. Twenty-two countries is a very large co-operation.
Two weeks ago, we had a collaboration that was my initiative and which was supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, with whom I have totally different views. It was an open discussion on the future of Europe between the Visegrad countries and the Balkans, the "B4" which are the four countries co-operating with each other (Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece), and Slovenia, plus the candidate countries from the western Balkans. What are these initiatives? They are initiatives that try to make it easier for us to find a European route that serves our people but also serves Europe's future and the small and medium-sized countries which will be a large part of the negotiations on the future of Europe: who will have a Commissioner, how many Commissioners will there be, how many votes we will have, etc.
So we form strong allied institutions and mechanisms, which in my opinion are the way to the solution. Europe has problems. But these problems do not exist because of the extreme views of a European politician, Italian or Slovenian. Extreme views win because we missed the questions the world put forth. That is, there are no, as I always say, left or right questions, there are no progressive or reactionary issues, there are left and right answers. If, however, before we respond, we miss what worries the world, what moves the world, what the world is asking, then we will see the rise of such forces. These forces show us what we have to pay attention to and what we have to do in politics.
G. MELINGONIS: Minister, reaching the end, can you describe what remains to be discussed tomorrow with Mr. Tsipras and Mr. Zaev? What seems to be the problem?
N. KOTZIAS: There is no problem. I think they are reaching the solution of some problems. If you see the wording I hear from the Prime Minister’s office, and I know because I was there this morning, the discussion will be concluded tomorrow.
G. MELINGONIS: OK. Minister, thank you very much for your presence on such a critical day and for the news you have given us here on Kontra Channel’s main news show.
N. KOTZIAS: And I thank you. I wish you and the new way that you have set up your news show the best of luck.
G. MELINGONIS: We all thank you very much.
N. KOTZIAS: And I thank you very much.
June 12, 2018