One-session debate and vote in principle, by article and as a whole of the draft law: "Ratification of the Second Protocol of Amendment to the Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Government of the United States of America"
N. DENDIAS: Ladies and gentlemen MPs, the government is proposing the ratification of this Agreement at a particularly critical juncture.
However, I would suggest that, in order to have a clear picture of the government's will and position, but also of the political parties’ position, we should try together to identify the current environment of threats in which our country moves.
Because it is much more complex than it seems at first glance.
And many times, now, the threats lie far beyond our narrow geographical borders.
Some examples: terrorism in the Sahel region and in Africa in general constitutes a threat of different levels.
It is known that it triggers migration.
Another example closer to us: destabilization in the Balkans, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Kosovo, in North Macedonia, constitutes a threat to Greece.
The draft resolutions submitted by Turkey to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation constitute a threat to Greece.
Turkey's unfounded attempt to lead the Arab and Muslim world and undermine governments in the Arab world that are friendly to Greece constitutes a threat to Greece.
The attempt to not apply the provisions of UNCLOS anywhere in the world constitutes a threat to Greece.
The overthrow of the status of respect for territorial integrity of the states constitutes an existential threat to Greece.
I end this list here, though it could be much longer.
It could, for example, include issues of the greenhouse effect, which also constitutes a threat to Greece considering its geographical location.
Our own principles also dictate the positions we support in the current geopolitical state of affairs.
I am referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen MPs, Greece has great respect for the enormous Russian cultural tradition.
I have repeatedly made mention of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mayakovsky, in prose and poetry, of Tchaikovsky in music, of Pushkin who attended one of the first meetings of the Filiki Etairia in Odessa, and wrote about and commented on Ypsilantis’ personality.
Greece highly respects all this.
Nevertheless, they have nothing to do, or if you will, they come into direct conflict with the invasion of an independent state.
And Greece did not have and does not have the slightest possibility of taking a different course.
Because in fact, by defending the borders of all states in the world, Greece defends its own borders, its own independence, its own existence.
And you know, our existence and our independence are not guaranteed only by invoking the law.
I was chatting with the attending Speaker of Parliament during the session of the Standing Committee the day before yesterday and he told me something that I want to reiterate to you.
The rule of law is often in complete disproportion with the scope of the law.
And if you like, we shall refer to an example that we are all aware of, a tragic example.
That’s the Cyprus issue; the development of the Cyprus issue following the Turkish invasion from 1974 until today.
Ladies and gentlemen MPs, since the Mitsotakis Government policy statements, I have clearly stated my position on the foreign policy that we will pursue.
If you remember, I described it to you in the context of 6 intersecting cycles, which concern geographical areas and thematic areas.
In this context, let me not go into too much detail today, the Government has to a great extent resolved the pending issues regarding our maritime borders with Egypt, with Italy, and in principle with Albania.
We are fully back in fulfilling our role in the Balkans.
We have shielded our defense with a series of Agreements, the first Agreement with the United States, the Agreement we are ratifying today, the Agreement with France, the Agreement with the United Arab Emirates, the Agreement with Saudi Arabia.
And we have also contributed, to the best of our ability, to creating a framework, a very broad framework of understanding on the basis of International Law and the International Law of the Sea.
And when I’m saying a broad framework of understanding, I am referring to an open policy that extends to India I visited, to Japan I visited, to the African countries I visited, to Latin America where my visit is scheduled for 2022-2023, to the dozens of visits we received, to the hundreds of Agreements we have signed. Today, these Agreements exceed 210, if I have the correct number of bilateral and multilateral Agreements that we have signed.
Never before has there been such case in the Greek diplomatic history.
Our policy extends to all three international campaigns we have been running for the United Nations Security Council, for the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly and for the Human Rights Council.
Never before in our history have we pursued three campaigns.
Never before have we been elected to the Presidency of the UN General Assembly, nor to the Human Rights Council.
And these campaigns are precisely carried out so as to support the principles expressed by our policy.
And these campaigns are an active response to the threats against us, along with everything else the government is doing in the context of its foreign policy.
And I’m asking you, in this context, to understand the government’s will, which includes the Agreement that has been submitted to your judgment.
I heard -I have to say this- the expected argument "what do we get out of it?"
In fact, at this juncture, you will allow me, due to the experience I have already gained, I am able to understand the shift in the way arguments are put forward when the possibility of elections dawns, deep down, on the horizon, in twelve months’ time or so.
The arguments are embellished and presented in a rather different way when the pre-election year approaches.
"What do we get out of it", then?
And they go on to claim that "either we do not get enough or we get nothing".
Instead of getting an answer from me to this argument, I would like to ask you to read the Protocol of Amendment in relation to Blinken’s letter and the United States-Greece Defense and Interparliamentary Partnership Act.
The five chapters, plus one more to be exact, if you add the "3 + 1" Initiative, will give you the answer to what we gain.
In addition to material concessions, loans, funding for education, participation in the F35 program, material replacement, the "3 + 1" Initiative with its parliamentary component in which the leaders of both the majority and the minority in the Senate participate by law, if the gravity of this thing becomes clear to you, as I believe it does.
Also, please read the “Sense of Congress”, that is the essence of this law, which states the reason why the legislature ends up with this legislation. And also read how the relationship with Greece is described in this "Sense of Congress".
It is this Congress that for the first time a Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis will be addressing, in a few days.
This honor has never been bestowed on a Prime Minister of Greece and I imagine no one is suggesting that we should reject it.
I would like you to imagine what things would be like, despite what was heard here, if Congress granted such honour to President Erdogan and what would have been said then in this room.
It’s not a good thing to downplay or ignore everything in the context of a quasi-election conjuncture.
And, please, consider this Agreement in the context of the current geopolitical reality.
Imagine if this Agreement did not exist.
Imagine if Alexandroupolis and the communication channels from Alexandroupolis to Eastern and Central Europe were not available.
How important would the Straits be to the West and how much more difficult would it be to negotiate for our own national security, for our own independence, for our own future.
And, of course, the transformation of Alexandroupolis into a trade, energy and geopolitical hub, fully and completely serves our national interest.
This is the government’s position.
And thank you for asking me this question, because it goes without saying that we want the commercial activity as well.
I also reiterate what I have already said to the Standing Committee.
Article 7 was omitted because the government deemed it unnecessary considering that denunciation is provided for, and therefore, in case we want to bring any chapter back for discussion, we are able to just notify the other side that we are considering the termination of the Agreement, Mr. Katrougallos.
Anyway, I'll answer you about the extension time as well, thank you for reminding me.
I told you, however, that the cause of the challenge that not only Greece but the whole of Europe had to face (but in our region this was made clear in the worst possible way, due to the ongoing Turkish expansionism) was not the long-standing presence of the United States, it was the withdrawal of the United States, the turn of the United States towards the Indo-Pacific region.
It was the feeling that the European Union should address the issues of the Eastern Mediterranean by itself.
And I told you something, which is usually unpopular in Greece to say, but I told you clearly, as we need to be honest both with each other and with Greek society.
The government is keen on having the US presence here, it is not against it.
Therefore, the government considers the five-year period to be beneficial for the Greek people and Greek society.
It does not want the withdrawal of the United States to be “possible” at any moment in time.
The government does not believe that the withdrawal of the United States from our country serves the independence and security of Greek citizens and Greek society.
And, to be honest, I did not hear any convincing arguments along this line.
Therefore, we need not explain ourselves on the five-year period, as we consider this to be an asset for the Agreement and not a liability.
As regards the issue of our disengagement from China, life can play tricks sometimes, dear colleague.
Tomorrow morning at 09:00am I will be talking with the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the context of this conversation, it will be determined when I will travel to Beijing.
The Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs has visited Greece as well.
And for heaven’s sake, I have a strong sense of the difference in size between the two countries and their geopolitical imprint.
Greece should always have cooperation relationships with the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Now, as regards the issue of Cuba that you put forward in your speech: I usually do not say that, but in this case, it is important to understand that a policy of principles is not one-dimensional and does not deprive us of the opportunity to communicate with other countries and different audiences, when this is done with a sense of justice and with seriousness.
In this regard, I am telling you that Cuba has pledged to vote in favour of Greece’s candidacy for the UN Security Council.
And if you wish to discuss issues concerning the letters, one colleague, making a digression – a parliamentary one, I imagine – and downplaying the gravitas of Mr. Blinken’s letter to the Prime Minister, asked: “What’s the big deal, how many such letters have been sent?”
The answer is: three letters; only three.
One letter was sent in 1977, and two more, signed by Mike Pompeo and Tony Blinken, during the Mitsotakis Government’ tenure.
Ladies and gentlemen MPs, I would also like to ask you this: I have never refused to brief anyone privately and with all cards on the table.
But I urge you to realize that there are limits, at least for the respective Minister of Foreign Affairs and the respective Minister of National Defence, when it comes to a debate, an open debate in Parliament.
And the arguments heard in this room should not weaken our national positions.
If, for instance, one considers what our national positions are regarding Turkish claims on the demilitarization of the Aegean islands in relation to the Montreux Convention, then one will come to realize what our national position on the issue of the letters and statements is, in addition to Treaties.
We cannot afford to be careless, we simply can’t. It would be desirable if Greece were Luxemburg, as far as security is concerned. But it is not, ladies and gentlemen MPs.
And as I also stated in the Standing Committee, I value everyone’s patriotism. But I also urge you to be careful. And if you want to be briefed, I am always at your disposal.
The issue of overflights has been raised, and rightly so.
Turkish overflights are unacceptable, entirely unacceptable. The violations of national airspace are also unacceptable, but overflights are of even greater weight.
They constitute disregard of national sovereignty and an attempt to impose Turkey’s positions.
But I want to be fair. You are aware of the Turkish contention regarding overflights. It is a continuation of the belated Turkish campaign alleging that Greece has the obligation of demilitarizing the islands.
Consequently, the full scope of the Turkish line of reasoning has come to the fore, by alleging that “there is no Greek sovereignty over the islands if they are not demilitarized”.
Regarding this main argument and main Turkish position, the State Department has taken a perfectly clear stance, condemning the Turkish view.
In this regard, I would like to submit for the minutes Mr. Blinken’s letter, and the Act, and the State Department’s statement, on the issue of Greece’s sovereignty over the islands.
As to what was said about deficiencies in the Second Protocol of Amendment to the Agreement, which is debated and will be voted today, I would like to ask you to recall what I explained – adequately, I believe – in the Standing Committee: that the amendment does not entail the repeal of the 1990 text.
Only what is explicitly amended and repealed is actually amended and repealed.
So, is all this the result of ignorance of the law – to put it this way?
It was argued that failing to reiterate that, for example, Greece and the United States reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter signifies – what exactly?
That Greece does not subscribe to the principles of the Charter and the United States does not subscribe to the principles of the Charter?
The Agreement of 1990 applies excepting what is explicitly amended or repealed, which are very few.
Some colleagues referred to the signatories of the Agreement, I imagine with the aim to give a measure of its importance.
There was reference to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Samaras, who subsequently became Prime Minister.
Did you notice the importance that was attached to Greece back then? Did you notice who signed the Agreement for the US part? The US Ambassador to Greece, Mr. Sotirhos, signed it.
You downplay Mr. Blinken’s letter. You downplay a bipartisan Act voted by the two Bodies of the US Legislative Branch, in a period when the US political system was extremely polarized; you are indifferent to the fact that the Prime Minister has been invited to address a joint meeting of the Congress.
You blame the government for holding a half-baked negotiation and you fail to simply notice the very fact that came as a widely acknowledged consequence of the improvement of our relations with the United States.
Mr. Skandalidis, I made a note of your question on the issue of the F-16 fighter jets.
I will tell you what I know, because I am not representing the US government here and therefore, I cannot give you an extensive answer.
The information we have received is that a pre-notification has been sent to Congress, concerning not the sale of new aircraft, but radar and missiles for the existing ones.
If you ask me, in my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, to provide an answer, I open a parenthesis to tell you.
This is not a done deal, to be clear. I told you, a pre-notification was sent, which is not even an official notification. This is the information we have.
As regards the Hellenic Republic, the upgrade of the Turkish arsenal constitutes a problem.
Why? For a very simple reason: because Turkey has issued a threat of war against Greece and because it violates the sovereignty and the sovereign rights of the Hellenic Republic, as the State Department itself has repeatedly stated in press releases.
Consequently, the position of the Greek Government is clear, we say no.
The position of the Greek Government is clear on the issue of the sale of German submarines to Turkey as well. We say no. This is our view and we will stand by it. And I am convinced that we will do so with the support of all political parties and all the wings of the Parliament.
However, one thing is for certain. I do not believe that our job in Washington the day after tomorrow would become any easier if, for instance, the Hellenic Parliament, exercising its full sovereignty, rejected the Agreement submitted by the government, would it?
If you did not vote in favour of the Agreement, Mr. Skandalidis, we would not become stronger, we would become weaker instead.
Because Greece, ladies and gentlemen MPs, has never in its history pursued the policy of the ‘evasive neutral’, it never has.
It did not do so in World War II. I should recall that Turkey declared war on Nazi Germany just a week before the war ended.
Greece did not do so in the Balkan Wars, nor in World War I.
This is not our policy. This is not the policy pursued by the great national Leaders of Hellenism, who created modern Greece.
It is not to our interest to copy foreign paradigms, paradigms which are incompatible with our principles at that.
Ladies and gentlemen MPs, I wish I had the opportunity to address the Parliament in a better international situation; at a time when the world, Europe, the whole planet, would enjoy security, growth, peace and prosperity. This is not the case, just the opposite is true.
But, if nothing else, in this extremely adverse international situation, I think it is becoming clearer than ever that the foreign policy pursued by the government, the foreign policy pursued by the Mitsotakis Government - I should say with the consent of the overwhelming majority of the Greek political world - protected the country and provided it with the diplomatic means that allow it to look forward to the future of the Greek people with optimism and security.
Thank you so much.
Minister of Foreign Affairs’ 2nd intervention in Parliament
First of all, I would like to welcome the responsible stance of the KINAL party, its position, the objections it has put forward, which have been debated in Parliament, but its decision to vote in favour of the Agreement is particularly important and I would like to welcome it.
I would just like to ask for a clarification to be taken into account. Referring to the reasoning you mentioned, Mr. Katrinis, I indeed said so, but this is not the main argument, it is what I went on to say.
If you look at the Protocol itself, it says “the Agreement”, (it refers to the 1990 Agreement), “remains in force”.
All articles of the preamble to the 1990 agreement remain in force.
I simply explained that I chose to reiterate the safeguarding of security and sovereignty, for reasons we all understand in this room.
But everything applies, including the reference to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Thank you very much.
May 12, 2022