We have the upcoming National Council on Foreign Policy, so we’ll talk there. I would simply like to give answers to a few things, Mr. President, with whom we share the same first name and to whom I would like to wish a happy name-day for today publicly, as I’ve already done so privately.
To start with, everyone in this room agrees with what the Prime Minister has said. Meaning that foreign policy issues are a special category, where dialogue must carry the gravity of the subject and national consensus must exist and be promoted. I think we have pretty much conquered this.
And if you allow me, Mr. President, to tell you that we were truly surprised, and not pleasantly, with the statement of the former Prime Minister just minutes before the meeting with the President of Turkey. A meeting which, let’s not kid ourselves, was going to take place within a strained climate; strained due to the recent actions by Turkey with regard to the memorandum they signed with Mr. Sarraj, as well as due to its conduct regarding the migrant issue.
We wish, and will continue to do so, for national concord and no such positions when it comes to such crucial issues for the country, not the government but the country, and this is a crucial point in time. As for the criticism, which I ought to say you indirectly exercised with sobriety, with regard to how the government views this memorandum.
Dear Colleagues,
We do not in any way underestimate it; on the contrary, we consider it an escalation on the part of Turkey, but we are fully obligated, and I think everyone in this room agrees on this, to also highlight the substantial issues of legality that cancel its existence.
The Greek side is not willing to accept that this text constitutes a valid legal text that was signed between two other countries. Not because this is in our national interest, which is obvious, but because this is what's right. As you understand – and that’s why I do not want to expound on this before the Greek Parliament, we will talk more openly and more clearly at the Foreign Policy Council – there was evident preparation. You saw this preparation, how it unfolded immediately after Turkey’s announcement that it has signed the specific memorandum. Actually, a series of actions to avert it had preceded.
However, due to the conditions on Libyan soil, Mr. Sarraj – and Foreign Minister Siala, who had assured me in New York in September that this text is, even as an idea, far from international legality - and it was not going to be signed – made it to Istanbul to sign this alleged memorandum.
However, let me reiterate, we are not in any way underestimating it.
But, dear Colleagues, we are neither willing to discuss it as if it were a valid text.
Let me now come to the measures of the European Union and the USA. The European Union, through the Council of Ministers, has decided on sanctions. Sanctions against individuals and legal entities, and they are in the process of working out against which individuals and legal entities these measures will be taken.
There are no delays as to this. As for the USA, you are aware that the mood against Turkey in the US Congress and House of Representatives, the legislative bodies, is extremely unfavourable.
The State Department issued a statement using very harsh vocabulary, and this statement was issued just hours after the meeting between President Erdogan and President Trump in London.
So, I ought to tell you that we feel that the country is using its footing in the best possible manner. I am concluding with the issue of lack of communication, Mr. President, which I ought to address.
Mr. President, we are not willing to discuss with anyone whether a Greek party has relations with terrorism. It is not a position of the country's government.
So, we are coming to the issue of confidence-building measures of the Ministry of National Defence. To start with, let me repeat that it falls within the competence of the Ministry of National Defence; however, the responsibility of the country’s foreign policy lies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. There were no government sources, either from the Ministry of National Defence or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that announced a discontinuation of talks on confidence-building measures of the Ministry of National Defence. It would have been a huge mistake. We have all agreed that, despite the crisis, we ought to talk. Because it is the only way to de-escalate the tension. There was indeed media information, I can honestly tell you I have no idea where it came from, which kept broadcasting something that did not really exist, for two hours.
But there is no, and please check this, government position, no government position, from anyone in the government as well as from any of the two Ministries, National Defence and Foreign Affairs, regarding a discontinuation of talks on confidence-building measures.
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to ask you – and I say this as a general position, I will attempt, by order of the Prime Minister, during the time I am exercising the duties I was assigned, to use vocabulary, expressions and a tone that relate to the work and the adversities of the times. I will also try not to exacerbate party disputes in the least. Just please weigh up what I will tell you, which is a description of the situation not criticism; what’s done is done, it was determined in the elections.
The problem with the current situation and the bilingualism existed from the previous government in that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of National Defence managed the foreign policy as two separate entities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a different foreign policy to the Ministry of National Defence. And these two agencies, and you know this, dear Colleagues, did not communicate with each other. And the Office of the former Prime Minister, headed by the Diplomatic Advisor of the former Prime Minister, had to operate as a foreign policy fire extinguisher.
So, let me tell you, with all due respect, that it is unfair to accuse the government of lack of communication. Whatever the case may be, I ought to repeat, dear Colleagues, what I had said at the government’s policy statements. On the matter of foreign policy, the government listens to and talks to the parties, about everything obviously. This simply happens to be my portfolio and that is why I’ve limited my opinions to this. I am not able to offer opinions on the rest; there are competent Ministers to do so. And the Government is talking to the opposition. The government draws a red line in the public dialogue on foreign policy in the event of populism and jingoism.
Other than that, we are available to the parties and the Parliament for dialogue and consensus, as this is imperative for our national interests.
December 6, 2019