The historian of the future, when studying the present era, will probably be surprised by how childish the way we discuss #ForeignPolicy is.
And maybe not just for her…
Indeed, today we are talking about Foreign Policy , as if the only issue is whether we should have… a dialogue with #Turkey !
We must be the only country in the world – and one of the few in recorded history – whose main question it seriously discusses is whether it should have… “dialogue” with its enemy!
(There is perhaps also the historical precedent of “Munich” in 1938 )…
And we are definitely the ONLY country in History that is seriously discussing whether we should declare our… “friendship” towards the country that openly threatens us and constantly imposes new “faits” on us!
The historian of the future, faced with these paradoxes, will seek the deepest causes of DECLINE!
Because he will have no doubt that this is a deep decline.
The causes will concern him…
- To remind you where we are: We are the country where Turkey is seriously announcing that it is preparing for War with us, and we wonder if it is right to talk about #Deterrence against Turkey!
They are talking about #War and we are wondering if it was right for us to declare our “friendship” with them…
So bad! So far away, so late at night!
- First of all, WHAT IS Foreign Policy?
Starting from the general to the specific:
It is the attitude a country has about its place in the world.
- The threats it faces,
- the ambitions she sets for herself,
- how threats are linked to its security
- and her ambitions with her future prosperity ,
- the broader alliances it promotes to neutralize existential threats against it and to advance its long-term interests
- the more specific alliances it makes against a common enemy to maximize its security,
- the priorities it sets for itself when it has to prioritize – that is, choose between – different threats, different alliances, and different ambitions.
- As well as the cost and risk it is willing to take to be a reliable partner to its allies and to be a reliable deterrent against its enemies.
If we can summarize all of this in six or seven words,
these words are:
Threats, Targets, Alliances, Deterrence, Hierarchies and Cost-Risk.
When some of these concepts are absent, the discussion about Foreign Policy is truncated and dead-end.
When they are all absent, the Discussion does not exist!
We are worrying about other things…
Not for Foreign Policy…
- International Law is subject to all of this. It is the framework within which the threats and ambitions of different countries operate. And it is neither a given nor inviolable.
It is not the starting point of a discussion about Foreign Policy, it is not the final goal of such a discussion, it is something that must definitely be taken into account, especially when the countries you are facing violate #International_Law.
Something that happens often…
— When the country you are facing openly and blatantly violates International Law wherever it suits them and you are told that you have no other choice but to invoke International Law, it is obvious that what is being discussed is not Foreign Policy, but rather the renunciation of any Foreign Policy.
— When the country facing you challenges your sovereign rights as provided for by International Law and you are told that you should not claim them, then they are essentially asking you to renounce the provisions of International Law.
- “Dialogue” is not even a concept that defines the discussion of Foreign Policy. All countries engage in dialogue with each other constantly, whether or not they do. Very often, even those at war.
Sometimes substantive dialogue, sometimes pretentious #dialogue , sometimes public dialogue, more usually secret dialogue, sometimes they say one thing publicly among themselves and another behind closed doors.
The question is never IF there should or shouldn’t be a dialogue , so in general…
The issue is what you discuss – on what basis is dialogue taking place – and what you are seeking.
— If you discuss based on International Law , then dialogue makes sense.
— If they ask you to accept to “negotiate” by bypassing International Law , then they are asking you to capitulate.
And if they tell you that, if you don’t have SUCH a dialogue, you want… War, then you are essentially not having a discussion about Foreign Policy, you have abolished any concept of Foreign Policy and they are directly blackmailing you with capitulation ultimatums.
And your enemies are no longer blackmailing you from across the border.
You are being blackmailed by “your own people”, who act as “parrots” of your enemies…
- They suddenly remembered that #Samaras was holding a dialogue with Turkey.
Like all previous #PrimeMinisters.
— But they forgot that under Samaras there was NO #Turkish-Lybian memorandum , i.e. direct violation of the Greek EEZ, this emerged under #Mitsotakis.
— Under Samaras, there was no “#Blue_Homeland” . This was adopted as Turkey’s official foreign policy doctrine under Mitsotakis.
— Under Samaras, there was no permanent Turkish #navtex in Half the Aegean – that is, a unilateral declaration of permanent operational control over half the #Aegean – this emerged under Mitsotakis.
— Under Samaras, there were no Turkish #marine_parks on Greek #EEZ jurisdiction , this has now emerged, under Mitsotakis.
— Under Samaras, there was no ban on laying a #cable outside #Kassos , unless Turkey is informed – that is, challenging a declared Greek EEZ. And this emerged under Mitsotakis.
All of this did not exist under Samaras. It emerged under Mitsotakis…
- Samaras held a dialogue with a Turkey that did not behave like a “pirate” at the time. Mitsotakis not only held a dialogue with a “pirate”, but he washed the pirate clean!
— Under Samaras, #Erdogan did not try to impose new faits accomplis of Turkey at the expense of Greece. And Samaras had no problem engaging in dialogue with him.
— Under Mitsotakis , Erdogan is constantly imposing faits accomplis on Greece. And then he asks us to discuss them with him.
And instead of denouncing the fait accompli , we declare that Turkey is… our “friend”!
And so we not only “legitimize” them indirectly.
Not only do we encourage him to create more…
But we also wash it off!
Because when other countries see that Erdogan is creating new faits accomplis and we proclaim our “friendship” with him, then everyone draws the conclusion that our differences are not serious (which they are, very serious), that we can get along amicably with him (which we cannot), and that they can also arm him fearlessly , because since the Greeks have no problem with Turkey, why shouldn’t the others also sell weapons to “our friend” Turkey?
- This is all WRONG! And anyone who doesn’t see it is either brainwashed himself, or believes that Greeks are brainwashed!
When Mitsotakis went to the US – before signing the #Athens_Agreement – and spoke to the US #Congress , among other things, he thanked them for not selling American weapons to Turkey. And he was right then…
Since he signed the Athens Agreement and declared his friendship with Turkey, everyone who wants to sell weapons to Turkey has invoked exactly this – that Greece and Turkey are now “friends” – to unblock arms sales to Turkey.
Which were previously blocked.
Sometimes they succeeded – mainly for the sale of Eurofighters and European weapons. Sometimes they didn’t – at least not yet (mainly from the American side).
But we, once, washed them properly.
And the “declaration of friendship” functioned as a #laundering of Turkey…
- They are now telling us that Mitsotakis bought weapons. And it is true.
But he bought weapons BEFORE declaring his “friendship” with Turkey , before he washed Turkey away. So the declaration of friendship with Turkey was not necessary for arming Greece.
With the #declaration_of_friendship, it simply made it easier for Turkey’s armaments to be unblocked!
And the fact that it is ordering weapons today (some of which we have started to receive, others we will receive gradually after one, two, three years) does not negate the fact that today half of the Aegean is occupied by Turkey, the Greek EEZ is being encroached upon by Turkey , etc.
The damage is done today! We will have weapons the day after tomorrow, just as Turkey will have more weapons the day after tomorrow.
To do them, what exactly?
- Anyone who seriously discusses Foreign Policy arms themselves, without simultaneously helping their enemy arm themselves.
— Anyone who seriously discusses foreign policy seeks allies against a common enemy. He does not alienate them by proclaiming his friendship towards the supposed… common enemies.
If a country wants to stand by Greece because it is also in danger from Turkey, what will it think when Athens declares its friendship with Turkey? It will think that Greece is not a reliable ally against a common enemy.
It is not only that by washing Turkey away we encouraged our Atlantic allies and partners to rearm it. It is that we also discouraged our potential allies against Turkey!
Somehow we are about to lose Egypt.
We haven’t lost Israel , of course (at least not yet)…
- The Athens Agreement did not create “calm waters” – even for a while. It created new faits accomplis without resistance from Greece’s side…
— It did not open any path for meaningful dialogue with Turkey. It emboldened Turkey and discouraged potential allies of Greece against Turkey.
— It did not elevate Greece in the eyes of its allies.
He highlighted Turkey as a “normal” and “secure partner”.
In other words: Greece did not gain credibility.
Turkey gained “legitimization”.
It was the biggest #ForeignPolicy failure!
Everyone is saying it now! Even government officials admit it…
And whoever doesn’t see this anymore
either he himself is lobotomy.
either he considers the Greeks to be lobotomy.
Of course, both can happen…
THANASSIS K.
