Minister of Foreign Affairs George Gerapetritis’ address at the Annual Meeting of the Ambassadors of Latvia (Riga, 28.01.2025)

Minister of Foreign Affairs George Gerapetritis’ address at the Annual Meeting of the Ambassadors of Latvia (Riga, 28.01.2025)

I am really delighted to be here with you. It is a great pleasure and honor. I know that you are doing a very important, an invaluable work. Because the truth is that global governance and multilateral governance is now the major issue worldwide. Because the truth is that there is not a single challenge that could be considered as mainly national. You can see what is happening worldwide. You can see aggression, climate crisis, health insecurity. You can see diseases circulating worldwide.

I think what is really needed is a new system of international architecture that could guarantee fundamental rights, but could also prove to be effective. It seems that we're lacking effectiveness. In the last three years, I think that there has been a total or at least a partial failure of the international security architecture. Because the truth is that we have encountered two major wars in very critical regions. And now we have almost 55 conflicts in the world, almost one fourth of the countries are now in a state of conflict.

However, we haven't actually addressed those issues. And we haven't addressed the root causes, which produce and reproduce those types of conflicts, be that international or national conflicts, be that famine or climate crisis. I think the challenges are there.

I would just like to point out two issues relating to the globality of challenges. I think the first issue is how we structure, how we revisit the system of international security. I was discussing with the Foreign Minister that the post-war international system has been built upon the idea of veto rights. And that has been proven absolutely ineffective for different reasons. For example, when it comes to the UN Security Council, the veto was essentially the powerful tool of the winners of the Second World War. Whereas in the European Union the veto right was essentially the tool of the weakest member states. Exactly because the treaty wanted to guarantee a level of inclusiveness within the European Union, when there was still a high suspicion concerning decisions of the powerful European nations.

Now, the bottom line is that in both cases we see that even basic decisions, decisions which are deeply rooted in international law, or decisions that essentially have no counter-arguments, like the provision of humanitarian aid and the ceasefire in Sudan, or the provision of humanitarian aid in other parts of the world, like the Middle East, or the decision concerning Ukraine cannot be made. We cannot achieve a decision, because there can be no unanimity. The obvious reason is that stakeholders are part of the veto-right mechanism, which essentially means that there is no way to reach a unanimous decision. This is where sometimes within the European Union we are very inventive in trying to bypass the veto requirements through coffee breaks or whatever. But this cannot be an institutional response obviously. So, we need to revisit the decision-making of international organizations. And sometimes also the composition. For example, the Security Council, which is highly unrepresentative of the balance of power globally today.

The second issue concerning again diplomacy is where we place emphasis on the international arena. The truth is that, apart from the basic international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union or the Council of Europe, the international architecture has been built upon the idea of regional cooperation.

The Baltics, the Balkans, Latin America. I think this has resulted in an “incrementalization” of international cooperation. I think that it is of vital importance that we change the pattern of cooperation between nations, in order to bring together nations that are not in geographical proximity, but are in a state of like-mindedness. I was also explaining to the Latvian Foreign Minister that on some occasions it seems that we, in the South of Europe, seem not to understand the political attitude of the Nordic or the Baltic states and the priorities of their foreign policy, and vice versa. Although the challenges are absolutely common. When we are discussing with the Minister, there was no point of difference. Why? Because we have exactly the same concerns. We are skeptical about the same things. We are at the external borders of the European Union. We suffer the hybrid threats almost on the same layer. And we suffer when it comes to cases of illegal, irregular migration, revisionism or aggression. So, we have exactly the same problems, yet we do not have a standing channel of communication. So, what I really think is important is that we develop cross-regional cooperation.

And this is why I think we have to get together and try to better understand one another to the benefit of our continent and of the world. I think we should employ a much more open and cross-regional reaction to what is happening. And above all we have to develop a mutual awareness and understanding about political phenomena. So, I think we do encounter some huge changes in the global environment. And on some occasions, we are not ready to address these tectonic changes worldwide.

The truth is that conventional foreign policy was based on the idea of traditional “foresighting”. We were trying to foresee what is going to happen, which is now absolutely impossible. We cannot predict anything, even in the near future. Now we have to work mostly on “what if” scenarios. Because the truth is that our job is above all to have quick, fast, speedy and effective solutions to all potential problems that might arise. And a good diplomat is a very well-prepared diplomat.

And well done to you for your patience. You have chosen very tough profession. On the other hand, I think that it is probably the worst timing after World War II to be a Foreign Minister. And especially being the Foreign Minister of a non-permanent member state of the Security Council, that we are this year and next year, and that you aspire to be next year.

So, let's keep our fingers crossed and thank you so much for listening.

January 28, 2025

The website uses cookies in order to offer you the best possible experience