It would take hours to discuss all subjects because they are very open-ended. So, I would like to make introductory remarks to give some food for thought. The truth is that when I tried to elaborate on the issues last week, it was a completely different speech. Because things are moving so rapidly that they become completely outdated in a couple of days. The problem now is that there is no predictability in anything.
I think this has completely changed any politician's job, especially a Foreign Minister's job. Instead of trying to foresee what is going to happen, to predict the future - which is completely out of the question - what you have to do is to try and come up with all alternative scenarios to be able to address the sensitivities coming up. That's why I have no notes. I would like to make a few points.
First, I'm thrilled to be in Thessaloniki because this city reflects history, diversity, and power in diversity. You can see this here in this room because it's a very colourful mix of people from all corners of Europe and the world. It's really important to be in this place.
I am delighted, secondly, because I will be with Martin Schulz. I couldn't expect a better interlocutor to discuss with, and I am honoured to be here. Martin Schulz is probably one of the top five pro-Europeans, pro-Federalists. He was a firm supporter of Europe and Greece during the very tough decade from 2010, especially when he took over the Presidency of the European Parliament from 2012 to 2017. Five years. It was probably the most difficult period for Europe altogether. Obviously, it was the most difficult period for Greece, but it was also the most difficult period for Europe. Because I think what we had to show back then was the solidarity that we needed with the sustainability of Europe, the autonomy of Europe. And above all, we had to demonstrate to the world and ourselves that we are united. I think Martin Schultz was a key figure in showing this unity, and I think we're all here in Greece, hugely indebted to him for his support.
I am not sure we will eventually end in the United States of Europe, as Martin said a decade ago. What I have to say is that we have to reinvent Europe. And we probably have to try to revisit the basic premises upon which Europe was established. What I'm saying is that Europe is now at a crossroads. And I think there is a major fork in the road now. We need to make some very strong decisions. We must be very powerful because we have some difficult choices ahead.
I would like to make a very strong statement. I think Europe and the international security architecture have failed in responding to contemporary challenges. We have not succeeded in having a very powerful, meaningful latitude towards the two wars we have in our neighbourhood. We haven't made it to articulate a single voice against aggression and, especially, the Russian aggression against Ukraine. We are still discussing how to make it possible to stop the hostilities in the Middle East and hold the domino effect, the spillover of hostilities in the broader region. We haven't made it to be as strong and meaningful as we would like.
This, I think, has to do with two primary grounds. The first is that the decision-making process within Europe is not always the most rational. If you just participate - and I can see quite a few people who have been in European Union Councils. In one Council, you do understand how difficult it is to reach a decision. You may agree on the basics and the root causes that produce adverse effects, but you cannot reach unanimity when it comes to tangible results. We may discuss within European Councils for hours for just a word or two or a phrase, but eventually, we cannot reach a meaningful conclusion. I think the Middle East situation is very evident. Why? Because we all agree in Europe about what we should do and what the result is. We all agree that hostility should stop. We all agree that hostages should be released. And it was an appalling and dreadful picture of what we saw a couple of days ago with the six dead hostages. We all agree that we should end up forming a Palestinian state. Yet, we cannot come up with the vehicle to achieve it. Sometimes, we sacrifice the substance for processes. And this is something that is not akin to Europe.
The second reason we sometimes fail to reach some meaningful result is that Europe has not yet received the level of strategic autonomy that we need to achieve. I think the next Parliament is going to be crucial. And it's of utmost importance, I think, for the new Members of the European Parliament, and of course, for the new Commissioners - Apostolos is going to be among them, and he's not going to have an easy job by any means.
The truth is that there are some challenges that have never been in the past, at least in that type of urgency. Competitiveness, agriculture, defence - they're all very acute. They need to be addressed very shortly, and we have to be united. This is something that we have to address earlier rather than later.
What I see, and I can see it in my capacity as a foreign minister, but also in my academic capacity, is that we are moving rapidly towards a geopolitical Europe. But we haven't yet decided on the mainstays of how we achieve this geopolitical Europe. Europe needs to be geopolitical. There is no option to this because Europe has to address the war in Ukraine. Europe has to address what is happening in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the very near future, we are going to address huge problems concerning Africa.
If someone sees what is happening now in Africa, I think they would be scared to death. It's a dreadful situation, especially in the Sahel region in Sub-Saharan Africa. You can see only authoritarian regimes, you can see civil wars, you can see starvation, you can see vast problems. And I think we are not dealing with those issues.
At some point, we have to decide what type of future we need for ourselves and the future generations. We need to develop some modern modules of sustainability. Sustainability is going to be the keyword, I think, for the future - not only for the environment but also for all aspects of human life.
We have to see how we can reduce the inequalities. We are suffering from a high level of inequality. Convergence is not an easy thing. We all know there is some divergence in Europe and around the world, but divergence is getting bigger and bigger. And we haven't yet found the proper modules to combat those inequalities. We need to be much more decisive to survive as Europeans.
I will conclude, because I know it's better to discuss instead of having monologues. What I have to say is that the political scenery around the world is not very promising or thrilling. I'm not talking about the American elections, which will be a milestone because we all understand that without the support of the United States, without strong links between Europe, the United States, and NATO, we will not have a strong defence against authoritarianism.
What I'm saying is that we need to develop fundamental principles when it comes to foreign policy. We need to share some common beliefs. We have to build a common mindset when it comes to basic values.
I think this is important: I'm saying I can see - and indeed, I'm pretty concerned with this. We were discussing with Martin about it - the rise of extreme political parties. I can see again the rise of populism, especially in Europe; the results of the German regional elections. We can see that there is a very strong, not alliance, but a very strong partnership between far-right and far-left. We see a mutation of a far-left towards a more populist agenda. We couldn't imagine that a far-left party could be anti-migration or could be pro-Russian or any other sort of that type of agenda, but we see it.
We have to stand together, when it comes to the rise of the political extremities. We have to serve the moderate political speech, and we have to share common values. We need to be here, and we need to be together, and we need to be active.
In a world which is moving so rapidly, in a world that changes every day, if you stay inactive, this is, by definition, a setback. Thank you.
MODERATOR: While in this room and on this stage, we talk about the importance of cohesion, the importance of agreement, there is, I think, very clearly a battle underway in the heart of European politics between the liberal and the illiberal visions of where Europe should go. The illiberal vision that people are spelling out around the continent isn't simply a reaction to the kinds of proposals that you two gentlemen are making. It's an espousal of an alternative vision, an alternative way of looking at Europe. I would like to ask both of you briefly to reflect on and comment on how this confrontation can be resolved and how it will be resolved. Where do you expect it to settle? You talked about the founding principles of Europe. What are they, and how can they be matched in the current division and the polarisation of European politics?
G. GERAPETRITIS: I think there is an institutional aspect and a political-psychological aspect. The institutional aspect connotes the idea that we need to revisit the decision-making process. We have seen that the concept of veto players hasn't worked and hasn't performed well on many occasions. We need to find some more, even out of the box, ideas to try and set up decision-making processes that are effective and meaningful to be able to achieve the eventual decisions. From a historical point of view, I can see the point in having the idea of unanimity in the '50s, the '60s, and the '70s. Still, I seriously doubt whether today, this is the type of decision-making that could eventually result in some rational choices.
The second is the political-psychological, and I think it's a matter of mindset. Martin Schulz has much to say about the political attitudes and the behavioural models. I need to say that I'm a firm believer in deliberative democracy. I believe in deliberative processes. We need to be deliberative.
There is a problem of polarisation in collective groups. Polarisation is, by definition, the essence of any collective body. You cannot have, by definition, a group that everybody would agree on anything. What you have to do is to be more deliberative, which means that you have to be ready to change your mind if there are some strong, reasonable arguments to be able to change your view. I think this is completely important. Just take the example of the jury system in the United States. You have 13 people, and they have to reach unanimity. Unless they reach unanimity, they never leave the room. Why? The starting point is not the same option for everything. However, it would help if you have an open mind and a deliberative mode to reach a decision. We have to agree on the basics. The basics are, of course, liberal democracy. Illiberal democracy, I think, is a contradiction. You cannot have a democracy which is illiberal.
But we also need to see that the power of a body like the European Union lies essentially with its diversity. We need to see diversity as an enriching factor. I like to say that Europe is more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. Each of the ingredients adds up to a more sophisticated and more enriching approach to any decision-making. This is how I would like to envisage Europe, and I think this is the idea. I cannot reach the wisdom of Martin Schulz in political terms. Still, I could add some good-quality Greek ancient philosophy and literature by saying that the whole is always larger than the sum of its constituent parts, Aristotle. If you have the parts and eventually make it a single vehicle, this is much bigger than the sum of all its constituent parts.
MODERATOR: Excellent. Thank you. Well, another question. You mentioned Greek philosophy. It does interest me that as we look around Europe at the moment - and I look from the other side of the channel where we're saving the embarrassment of having to deal with Nigel Farage, whose name didn't come up, which is fantastic. We look at a number of countries suffering unusual upheaval, unusual instability in their politics. Germany, France, two good examples. At the very core of Europe and normally the directors, the drivers of the European project. Greece isn't like that at the moment. Greece is an oasis, if you like, of stability. On the one hand, Greece has a part to play because you have that stability. But I wondered, do you think there's something that Greece can bring to the table because it's Greece? Something that because of the way Greece works, Greece's history, Greece's role, Greece's geographical position, there's a contribution that you, as a Foreign Minister or the Greek diplomatic corps, can make in the European context?
G. GERAPETRITIS: I don't want just to set forth any sort of heresy in our discussion, but I would say that, ironically, one of the major reasons why we are in a state of stability today is because we survived the financial crisis that we suffered for ten years. It's as simple as this. First of all, we had to address the issue of populism. We saw we tried, we tested populism in our political life, and we saw that this was a total illusion. It was very hard for us, and we had a harsh, very harsh treatment, which on some occasions was proved to be inaccurate and inhumane.
But the truth is that despite all the econometrics of the financial crisis, we survived this and now consider ourselves very strong, resilient, and experienced. This is why I think we are stable. Because Greek people - and I trust Greek people - now know that populism is not the answer to any question. This is, for me, one important political contribution that we can just set forth within a European context.
The second is that Greece, because of geography, because of geopolitics, because of history, can be a bridge. I like to say that bridges are an essential tool for improvement and sustainability. Greece can be the bridge between the North and the South, between the East and the West. And we can perform this role very well, I can assure you. As you probably know, we will serve for a couple of years at the Security Council as a non-permanent member. We're very much looking forward to work towards this. We had an outstanding performance in the election process. We had something like 98% positive votes during our election. This is a huge political responsibility, but honestly, actually, sincerely, I think we can have some added value precisely because we can be the bridge of nations and the bridge of countries. As Martin Schulz mentioned, what we need now is governments and states and people who can produce convergence and are not divergent by attitudes.
September 6, 2024