Thank you very much, Professor, primarily for the unique opportunity to engage with young people, younger colleagues, and especially students, whom I have deeply missed due to my current capacity. Being among the youth is undoubtedly the most invigorating aspect. And it is truly remarkable that you hold an interest in international relations and foreign policy. In my view, realizing that foreign policy and international relations are not a luxury, but rather our life itself, and could lead us to another form of understanding various phenomena as well as our daily existence.
The Hellenic Society of International Law and International Relations has stood as a thought-producing body of particular value for Greek foreign policy and for our country over the years. Its President, Professor Perrakis, in particular, has made significant contributions over time.
Currently, two significant events concerning Gaza are unfolding. The first is the United Nations Security Council session taking place in New York, the background of which, I trust, you are familiar with. The second is an extensive operation to establish a sustainable humanitarian corridor to the Middle East. More countries, including Greece, are contributing to this effort, with Cyprus serving as a hub due to its proximity to the Middle East, playing a very important role. Considerable efforts have been made towards establishing this sustainable humanitarian corridor. You all realize, though, that it is crucial for the parties involved to exhibit tolerance in order to ensure the continuity of humanitarian aid provision. Equally important is the establishment of suitable infrastructure to support such endeavors.
Our major problem, Professor, concerning the maritime humanitarian corridor was the lack of safe infrastructure in Gaza. In other words, there is no port, resulting in the inability for a conventional ship to dock, necessitating the use of war-type vessels that can reach the coast, specifically landing ships. However, this poses additional security risks, having to do with the depth of the waters. It’s an exceedingly complex endeavor. Yet, at this moment, it is necessary for this humanitarian corridor to exist.
Let me return to the Security Council session. You are familiar with the background. Ladies and gentlemen, Professors of International Law, there is an issue here that has to do with the architecture of decision-making in almost all international organizations. Since international organizations inherently have a particular hybrid character and lack the element of unified sovereignty, it is not taken for granted, as it is within a state, that we must come to a decision.
On the other hand, as it is necessary to maintain balances between the member states participating in each international organization, there should be many safeguards, namely the right of veto. This always creates a significant complication when it comes to making a decision. This is now the case with the United Nations, where, due to the inability to reach a decision in the Security Council, we are forced to shift the responsibility to the UN General Assembly, resulting in a certain asymmetry. It is a phenomenon of our times.
For example, in the case of Ukraine, Russia's veto power prevents any decision from being made in the Security Council. In the case of the Middle East, the veto power of the United States creates a similar problem in reaching any decision at the Security Council level. What is the result? The decision-making process is transferred to the General Assembly, where different terms and a special majority apply, but there is no veto power.
I remind you that this already happened the first time we had a resolution in favor of a humanitarian pause. For the second time, following the failure to make a decision at the Security Council level, the decision was made by the General Assembly with a large majority. And now, essentially the same text, tabled by the United Arab Emirates, returns, having been approved by the General Assembly and referring to the obligation to create a permanent humanitarian pause, for at least one year, under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Just to make a theoretical abstraction. The same problem, Professor, that exists in terms of decision-making within the United Nations also exists correspondingly within the European Union. There, too, because of the veto power - which ultimately is the member state’s defense against the collectivity of the international entity - we face the same problems. You may have witnessed what happened last week within the European Council, where in order to bypass the need for unanimity among the member states at the Council level, someone had to leave the room and get some coffee. Thus, we all get a sense of the balance. It is not coincidental that at this moment, there is a very serious discussion underway, which precisely has to do with the revision of the decision-making process so that the veto can be transformed into something else, possibly a qualified majority or something else. In any case, as the mixture of member states participating in international organizations expands, you all realize how much more difficult it becomes to make a decision unanimously. Therefore, there are now voices calling for a change in the model.
In all this, Greece is present, having acquired an international diplomatic capital, which I feel is quite significant, perhaps disproportionate to its geographical size. What I also notice from my position is that the diplomatic capital of each country is a synthesis of multiple parameters. There is certainly the parameter of its geopolitical power. Naturally, a country located at a very pivotal point in the world has an inherently strong position in international diplomacy. It is also related to its size and population. It is obvious that a country like China or India accumulates, by definition, diplomatic capital. It refers to its political and diplomatic personnel. Leaders with a strong international footprint provide their countries with substantial diplomatic capital. It also has to do with a country’s overall power. Ultimately, if a country is doing well economically, even if it is small-sized like Greece, this reflects on its international capital, whether within international fora or at the level of bilateral relations.
Greece possesses strong international capital. I believe this international capital is greatly enhanced when the country demonstrates consistency and continuity in the way it conducts its diplomacy. This is what I call a foreign policy of principles. And Greece adheres to this consistently. It is a foreign policy based on principles. It is not transactional, meaning it does not in every case put forth an interest related to a quid pro quo. Nor is it opportunistic. We do not have different measures and standards issues that arise on the international stage. This allows us to have a very stable relationship, an honest relationship, and to be reliable interlocutors with various interested parties. What is happening today is that Greece, as regards the Middle East and the conflict there, has maintained a very consistent stance from the outset, which continues to this day.
What is the result? The international community, as well as the directly involved parties, appreciate this principled stance of discussing with all parties. We obviously communicate with Israel, a strategic partner of ours. However, we also hold extensive talks with the Arab world and the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority. I had the opportunity to travel to Ramallah and then to West Jerusalem, delivering messages from Ramallah. And of course, we are present in international organizations. Greece has had a very substantial intervention at all stages towards achieving a humanitarian pause, which we were actually the first to propose. And we certainly believe that we will have a strong say in the aftermath of this nightmare and the return to normalcy.
What did we say about the Middle East? We stated the obvious. That is, first, terrorism and aggression in any form must be condemned. Second, the values of International Law and especially Humanitarian Law, that is, the laws of war, with the primary and most important being the protection of civilians, must be respected. Third, civilians should not be used as shields, meaning that no hostages or any other form of inhumane and degrading treatment of people should occur. Fourth, there should be a continuous and sustainable flow of humanitarian aid. Fifth, an immediate international conference should be convened to address not only the immediate issue of the humanitarian pause and aid but also the launch of an underlying discussion that generates the crisis and has to do with the long-standing conflict in the Middle East.
It goes without saying that addressing the Palestinian Question within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolutions is currently the sole solution that could lead to a sustainable and more stable situation in the Middle East. Two assumptions accompany these principles.
The first assumption, which is extremely important, is that while recognizing Hamas' terrorist attack and all the characteristics it carries, which violate every rule of ethics and International Law, Hamas should not be equated with the Palestinian people. And for this reason, it was also our effort to grant greater legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority. The reality is that it is the only legitimate interlocutor for the next day discussions. And the Palestinians should have a legitimate say in the days to come.
The second assumption, of course, concerns the extent of Israel's right to defend itself. Although it is not disputed, it must be exercised within International Law, in accordance with the principles of proportionality and necessity.
Unfortunately, the current situation far exceeds the mandates of International Law and every notion of humanity. The death toll and violence of this war are unprecedented. The extreme positions have created an environment of hostility that greatly complicates any approach between the parties. However, I think that a convergence of the international community is developing on the need to end this war. And primarily to end it for humanitarian reasons. The images of civilian casualties, women, and children are not and should not be tolerated by the international community. Images of civilians being used as human shields, constitute the absolute devaluation of human dignity.
I feel that the international community's indecisiveness in imposing a solution to this nightmare is indicative of the general asymmetry that exists, not only in the realm of international organizations, i.e. universal governance, but also of an overall inability to impose a more deliberative solution. What I unfortunately discern, over time, professor, is an increasing difficulty to discuss, even under extremely difficult conditions. The logic of deliberative dialogue, the logic even of compromise as a value that can produce results, has been lost. We have seen that emphatically in Ukraine. We saw it, unfortunately, in the case of the South Caucasus, between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We observe unfortunately, very serious consequences that are not visible, because we think that they do not occur in our neighborhood, but rather in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel. And now, in the Middle East, we witness extreme situations that do not ensure the effective application of International Law.
Therefore, under these circumstances, a meaningful academic dialogue would constitute a substantial contribution. I believe that the logic underlying theoretical abstraction is currently something that we can have on the table, but it is not the most important nor the primary thing. It is imperative to address through creative solutions and proposals the need for a humanitarian pause and for the constant flow of as much humanitarian aid as possible.
And with these thoughts, I would like to welcome your conference and bring all these considerations to your attention. You know, initially, we considered Africa or the Caucasus or the Middle East extremely distant. Today, any crisis that arises at a regional level, has, by definition, a supranational character. The consequences that can arise can be fatal, not only for the immediate neighbors but for the whole world.
I wish you every success with the proceedings of your Conference. All the best, and I am very pleased to welcome you today at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Professor, thank you very much.
December 22, 2023