On December 11, in a historic decision for Greece, the members of the Eurogroup elected Kyriakos Pierrakakis as the new President of this informal group of 20 eurozone finance ministers for the next 2.5 years.

This is the first time that a Greek official has held this position since 2004, when the first permanent President in the history of this institution was elected.

He succeeds Jean-Claude Juncker (2005-2013), Jeroen Dijsselbloem (2013-2018), Mário Centeno (2018-2020), and Paschal Donohoe (2020-2025).

Kyriakos Pierrakakis, who was elected unanimously after his only rival, Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget, Vincent Van Peteghem, withdrew his candidacy, will also take over as president of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

As stated by the European Commissioner for Economy and Productivity, Valdis Dombrovskis, the Greek official’s success is an important symbolic moment for Greece and the euro area, and demonstrates that the country has made a remarkable turnaround, becoming one of euro area’s best performing economies with a budget surplus.

ESM Managing Director Pierre Gramegna echoed this sentiment, stating that this appointment recognises how far Greece has recovered from the financial crisis of the last decade, with the ESM proud to have been a partner in that journey.

In his congratulatory message, France’s Finance Minister Roland Lescure noted that a little over 10 years ago, the Eurogroup had devised and implemented measures to rescue Greece, which at the time was in a very difficult economic and financial situation.

Referring to the election of the Greek Finance Minister, President of the European Council, António Costa, said that Greece has come a long way in the past 10 years.

Upon his election, Kyriakos Pierrakakis stated that the old distinctions between the North and the South, the East and the West, seem to have subsided, while assuring that “in the years ahead, as President of the Eurogroup, my aim will be to keep the Eurogroup a body of unity and shared purpose, focusing on our common currency, our common economic interests and the European project, grounded in the core values of the Union”.

Sources: AMNA, France 24, Council of the European Union

Image source: Ministry of Economy and Finance

The post Greek Finance minister Kyriakos Pierrakakis elected president of the Eurogroup appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

The new composition of the European Parliament and, above all, the new European Commission, as it will be formed, will reflect the results of the recent elections and will have to manage a number of very important issues; in many cases, it will be necessary to do so in a very decisive way.

Think tanks diaNEOSis and ELIAMEP have collaborated to publish a report with four expert analyses under the title "Challenges and opportunities in the new political cycle of the European Union" (pdf, in Greek). These papers provide a detailed examination of the major challenges post-EP elections in four critical areas: defense, EU enlargement, economic governance and the Stability Pact, and asylum and migration policies.

These are all "hot" policy areas, which require an urgent, European response. As Professor Emeritus at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, professor at Sciences Po and chairman of the board of ELIAMEP, Loukas Tsoukalis, writes in his introduction, emphasizing the need for these challenges to concern the citizens collectively, "a European public space, multinational and multilingual, is not is now a utopia. On the contrary, it is the condition for all of us to build our common home in Europe, in combination with more decisions in European councils that will be taken by majority".

 Defense

The war in Ukraine brought defense issues as a common European issue to the fore. The text on defense is signed by Spyros Blavoukos, professor at the Athens University of Economics and head of the European program "Arian Kontelli" of ELIAMEP, together with Panos Politis-Lamprou, assistant researcher at ELIAMEP. Their analysis presents the joint defense initiatives before 2022 - with the Maastricht treaties in 1993 and Lisbon in 2007- and goes on to analyze the recent Versailles declaration, signed just two weeks after the start of the war, and how it is being implemented.

Of course, despite the steps taken, many challenges remain. These are mainly related to the financing of the various initiatives, their institutional organization, but also their political management. And of course, how these initiatives can develop into an integrated European defense policy. But where does Greece stand in this context? "The developments create an important window of opportunity for Greece," the authors argue. "For the first time, the EU is investing strongly in the defense industry and is discussing a common defense. Given the geopolitical conditions prevailing in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, strengthening this prospect must be a priority for our country, which must continue to be in the vanguard of the EU member states in this field, without neglecting its national deterrent military capabilities."

Enlargement 

The war in Ukraine was also a catalyst for the enlargement of the Union. As in the previous phases of EU enlargement, so today, the respective reasons and concerns are both political and economic, which becomes evident by looking at the list of candidate countries for membership after 2023, whether they have started negotiations or not : Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The analysis, signed by the associate professor at the University of Macedonia, Ioannis Armakolas and the journalist Alexandra Voudouri, both collaborators of ELIAMEP, highlights and comments on the challenges of a possible new enlargement.

How will it affect Union budgets? Which countries are likely to lose European funds because of new members? How feasible is it for the candidate countries to immediately proceed with the institutional and economic reforms required by the accession process? "The EU needs to offer a credible 'road map' for the deeper integration of candidate countries in the coming years, as well as clarity about its own path for the necessary reforms," ​​the authors note. "There should be, after all, a common approach linking reforms and enlargement in a gradual way, as well as a mechanism to 'measure' the corresponding progress."

 Economic governance and the Stability Pact

 The great importance of a functioning and effective European economic governance became known in Greece in the previous decade of the crisis, often painfully. But it became more widely recognized in the Union, especially after the introduction of the euro, that at least a degree of coordination of national fiscal policies is required for the stability of the new currency. The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) introduced in 1997 and based on the Maastricht Treaty is the key tool: it sets limits on the budget deficit and public debt of member states. Of course, it has not remained unchanged since the 1990s, nor has it ever been followed to the letter by all countries. In 2008, 2011 and 2013 it changed with the global crisis and then with the euro crisis. In 2020 it froze and changed again with the pandemic crisis, while from the spring of 2023 a new framework has been adopted.

The analysis by Athens University of Economics and Business professor George Oikonomides looks back at the past of European fiscal rules, but also analyzes the most recent update of the SGP. Commenting on how this will affect Greece, he notes: "Among the positives of the proposed revision of the SGP as far as the Greek economy is concerned, one could note the exemption of public debt service interests from the new operational index – although public debt service interests low right now for our country, they are expected to increase significantly after 2032. Finally, the exemption of defense expenditures (as our country exceeds the average corresponding EU expenditures) or the exemption of other investment expenditures will be important, if implemented, as this will add degrees of flexibility to a particularly tight national fiscal framework."

Immigration

A few weeks ago, on May 14, the European Council adopted a new framework for the management of refugee and migration flows, the Pact on Asylum and Migration. This new framework, which consists of ten legislative texts, regulates the management of migration flows, ensuring both the external relations of the EU with the rest of the world and the internal balances between the member states.

It is well known fact how charged a topic immigration and refugees are in the countries of the European Union - something that was confirmed anew by the recent election results. In her enlightening text, Maria Gavouneli, professor at the Faculty of Law of the Greek National Academy of Sciences and general director of ELIAMEP, comments both on the main impasses of the past in managing of immigration, as well as on the main pillars of the recent Pact. It explains in detail what this means for guarding borders, for asylum procedures, for solidarity between countries in managing flows, but also for the integration of migrants.

Of course, many very important challenges remain. "The debate on immigration as a challenge, a problem, a natural phenomenon, an economic necessity, a social parameter, is an integral element of the political discourse and ultimately of the political confrontation, not only in developed countries but also in the Global South," the author of the chapter underlines. "As the pre-eminent destinations of refugee and migrant flows, European countries, and thus the European Union, act as a laboratory for political, social and ultimately legal experimentation. The Pact on Asylum and Migration is just that: an experiment. It is obvious that the proposed approaches and the possible solution are as demanding in their conception and implementation as the real problem they seek to address. We are still at the beginning of the complex legal and political management of a phenomenon that is absolutely related to human history."

I.L. translated from diaNEOSis article by Ilias Nikolaidis

The post Expert Report: Challenges and Opportunities for the new political cycle of the European Union appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Asteris Huliaras is Professor of Comparative Politics and International Relations in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of the Peloponnese, where he holds the European Jean Monnet Chair on EU relations with Less Developed Countries. His research interests focus on (global) North-South Relations, development studies, foreign policy analysis and civil society.

Professor Huliaras is the author or editor of several books and articles in peer-reviewed journals, including African Affairs, Asia-Europe Journal, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, and European Foreign Affairs. Among his recent publications are ‘Civil Society’, in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Greek Politics (2020), and with Kostantinos Magliveras, ‘African Diplomacy’ in The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy (2016). He has served as an advisor of the Greek government on public policy, in the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Greek Permanent Mission in the United Nations, while also having served as an expert in NATOs Expert Working Group on Africa and in the United Nations Human Security Network.

Professor Huliaras spoke to Rethinking Greece* on Africa’s prospects in the 21st century; on why EU’s interest for Africa is on the rise; on the evolving dynamics of the relationship between Europe and Africa and on the contacts, synergies and networks that are being created and strengthened between Greece and sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, he talks about the EU project he is the scientific director of, AfriquEurope, the largest network of African and European universities in the field of social sciences.

At the beginning of the 21st century, Africa was deemed to be at the point of economic take-off, and its geopolitical power was on the rise. Where does Africa find itself in the international geopolitical and economic landscape now?

By the turn of the century, optimism abounded regarding Africa's prospects. By 2000, six out of ten countries with the highest growth rates in the world were African. At that time the continent experienced unprecedented, since independence, levels of peace, with an increasing number of African leaders elected through largely free and fair elections. Global interest in African affairs surged, notably marked by China's emergence as a leading trade partner, aid provider and investor in the continent.

However, this optimism has since dissipated. Much of Africa's growth was tied to the soaring international prices of oil, metals, and other primary products. Consequently, when these prices plummeted, African exports suffered. While some resource-poor countries benefited, their gains were short-lived. The onset of the pandemic exacerbated existing challenges, compounded by civil wars in the Horn of Africa and Islamic rebellions in the western Sahel. The eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo remained mired in near-permanent crisis. These developments collectively displaced over 20 million people. Though several countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, and Cote d'Ivoire, exhibited relative resilience and maintained impressive growth rates for long periods, the overall landscape has markedly shifted. Numerous coups d'état, particularly in the Sahel, democratic regression (even in traditionally free nations like Senegal), and escalating conflicts that now threaten to destabilize entire regions have tarnished African prospects.

Still is difficult to generalize. Next to failures you have important success stories (e.g. Burundi versus Rwanda). Africa is more diverse than Europe. As the title of a recent book suggested: “Africa is not a country.”

How would you describe the Europe-Africa relationship today, and what are its prospects? How is it affected by factors such as the new Samoa agreement or China's dynamic presence in the continent?

In the past 5-6 years, developments concerning the future of EU’s relations with Africa are, at a first glance, disappointing. After BREXIT, Africa lost one of its strongest champions in Brussels. Then, the pandemic struck and EU’s attention focused on domestic health challenges. Finally, a week after the EU-African Union summit on 17-18 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Several analysts pessimistically concluded that Europe’s focus is shifting from Africa to other parts of the world. But then, in the past 5-6 years we witnessed several diverse messages and developments. In 2019, just before the last German election, Angela Merkel proudly argued that EU's “policies on Africa, now follow a common strategy, which a few years ago would have been unthinkable". In March 2020, while Europe was closing down in response to the coronavirus, the new European Commission released a new communication entitled “Towards a comprehensive Strategy with Africa,” a document with plenty of new ideas and plans. And finally, in December 2021, the EU announced the €300 billion so-called Global Gateway investment strategy – a very ambitious project, similar to the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative. Half of it – this means 150 billion euros - is to be deployed in Africa. Details of the Africa-Europe program, the first regional plan under Global Gateway, were announced just two months after the launch of the strategy.

So, there is no doubt that despite BREXIT, despite the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, increasingly EU officials and EU member-states are looking towards Africa. In my view, there are several factors that explain EU’s growing interest for Africa, leading to a much closer partnership. The first factor is a growing understanding that tackling underlying security and migration challenges would require a more holistic approach towards Africa. The second factor is the realization of the need to respond to Europe’s loss of influence amidst the growing number of external actors showing an interest in Africa, especially – but not only – China: India, Brazil, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Iran have all become important actors in Africa. The third is an understanding of the huge opportunities for European businesses that might arise from supporting Africa’s adoption and implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement and the new Samoa Agreement. Finally, in a strange way, the Ukrainian crisis has also increased Africa’s geopolitical importance for the EU. Both the EU and Africa focus on energy and food security. Among others, cooperation with some African countries is expected to help Europe replace imports of Russian natural gas and reduce dependence from Russia.

How can Africa complete the trajectory from a recipient of development aid to an equal partner with Europe? What do African countries expect from Europe?

Over the past half-century, the shadows of colonialism have gradually receded, paving the way for a shift towards what the European Commission terms a "partnership of equals" in Europe's engagement with Africa. Amidst this evolving landscape, there is a growing desire among Africans for increased European “greenfield” investments and greater support for infrastructure development across the continent. Additionally, there is a call for enhanced mobility opportunities for Africans seeking to relocate to Europe. While some authoritarian leaders may resist European pressure for liberalization and democratization, many African civil activists advocate for the EU to take a firmer stance, imposing stricter sanctions in response to human rights violations.

Thus, while the dynamics of the relationship between Europe and Africa continue to evolve, there remain tensions between the aspirations for a closer economic partnership and the imperatives of justice and accountability. Migration is also a constant challenge for policy-makers in both sides. Africa continues to be much dependent on both development aid and access to the developed world’s markets (especially for agricultural products). There is no doubt that to a large extent and despite the rhetoric, the relationship remains asymmetrical. However, this does not mean that African countries are powerless. There is much African “agency” in EU-African relations.

How does Greece differ from the rest of Europe in terms of its relations with sub-Saharan Africa? Which countries are of particular interest to Greece?

There has been a great deal of diplomatic activity taking place within the last 5 years in Greek-African relations. Greece has opened a new embassy in Senegal and former foreign minister Nikos Dendias made several official visits to the continent. Much of these contacts relate to Greece’s ambition to be elected as a non-permanent member of the UN’s security council for the 2025-6 period. There is also a push to do more, due to Turkey’s advance and rising influence in Africa. So, the main reasons for the Greek-African rapprochement are political.

At the economic level, if we look at Greece’s trade of goods with Sub-Saharan Africa, numbers are still insignificant. However, there are reasons for optimism. Firstly, there is a “hidden” economic activity, not very well recorded in statistics, that has to do with trade in services such as shipping, consulting, etc. Secondly, the Greek business community, encouraged by the Hellenic-African Chamber of Commerce and a few diplomatic missions in Athens (like the South African Embassy) shows a renewed interest for investing in the continent. For example, Mytilineos Group is investing in Libya and Ghana. Thirdly, diasporic communities (Greeks in Africa and the rising number of Africans in Greece), universities, NGOs and various cultural groups undertake numerous initiatives that are largely fragmented and difficult to monitor, but are however gradually and continuously fostering a wider, closer and deeper Greco-African relationship. Contacts, synergies and cooperations are multiplying, and many new networks are created and strengthened between Greece and Africa.

You are the scientific coordinator of the European Commission project "AfriquEurope: The European Union and Africa in a world of multiple crises," which aims to support closer cooperation between the two continents. Can you tell us more about this project?

We are very excited about this project. With partners and collaborators in 33 countries representing all regions of Africa, including French-, English- and Portuguese-speaking countries, AfriquEurope (2024-7), funded by the European Commission - Jean Monnet Policy Debate, is the largest network worldwide of African and European universities in the field of social sciences. With the University of the Peloponnese as the lead partner, the project will organize 12 thematic conferences in Africa, Europe and China as well as 10 research groups that will produce books, articles and working papers on EU-African relations. As the world order is being reshaped, AfriquEurope is dedicated to a mutually reinforcing dialogue between Europe and Africa, aiming at deepening ties and creating evidence-based solutions for policy makers on both sides of the Mediterranean.

* Interview to Ioulia Livaditi

Read also from Rethinking Greece:

• Angelos Dalachanis on the Greek Diaspora in Egypt and the Middle East
• Alexander Kitroeff: “Greek Diaspora has affected the history of host countries around the world”

The post Rethinking Greece | Asteris Huliaras : Contacts, synergies and cooperations are multiplying between Greece and Africa appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Ioannis Balabanidis is a researcher at the Centre for Political Research in the Department of Political Science and History at Panteion University; his main research interests concern comparative politics, political parties, europeanization, and historical sociology. Among others, he has published the books Eurocommunism: From Communist to Radical Left in Europe (Polis, 2015, and Routledge, 2018) and The ideas of progress and convervatism: Essay on politics in fluid times (Polis 2022; in Greek). He has translated Eric Hobsbawm´s seminal work “On nationalism” to Greek (Themelio, 2021) and serves on the editorial board of political science journal “Synchrona Themata”.

Ioannis Balabanidis spoke to Rethinking Greece* on Greek society's evolving views of the European project from the  late 1970s until now; how, despite the Eurosceptisism of the crisis years, Europe is still perceived by the majority of Greeks as a cornerstone of geopolitical, economic and democratic stability; on the cultural and economic distance between north and south Europe and how it can be bridged. Finally, he touched upon how the pandemic has brought to the fore a pan-European demand to strengthen public health systems and a new understanding of the common good, concluding that it is vital for the EU to respond to these new social demands. 

Greece became a member of the European Union (European Communites at the time) in 1981, without this choice gathering the consent of all political forces. Could we say that there are distinct phases in how Greek society viewed the European project?

We could attempt a periodization of the relationship of the Greeks with the European project, using what we know from the now rich literature, but also from primary sources, such surveys on public opinion and political culture, such as the Eurobarometer. Such a periodization, in its general lines, follows certain critical turning points of the Metapolitefsi period (i.e. the years after the fall of the military junta in 1974).

To summarize, we would say that in the first period of the transition to democracy, i.e. in the first years after 1974, Greece is a rather Eurosceptic country. There is a wider anti-Western sentiment, a key element in the social radicalism of the time, and not entirely unjustified as the imposition of the junta was partly blamed, for better or worse, on American intervention. It is no coincidence that in 1979, when the country's admission to the then EEC was being debated in the Parliament the parties that sided in favor of the European perspective were New Democracy, historically and geopolitically identified with the "camp" of the West, and, from the political forces of the Left, only the Eurocommunist party KKE interior- which had already developed a culture of Europeanism. Socialist PASOK and communist KKE are resisting, the former adopting the theory of the country's dependence on the Western capitalist center and therefore putting forward the demand for national independence, the latter as it is still in the shadow of Moscow. At the same time, however, with the wound of Cyprus still open and the young Third Hellenic Republic taking the first steps towards stabilization, "Europe" is perceived as a guarantee of geopolitical stability and consolidation of the democratic acquis.

When PASOK comes to power, it quickly normalizes its relationship (and the relationship of a large part of Greek society) with the EEC (European Economic Community). As the resources start flowing into the country from the EEC and aid "packages" such as the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes begin to become apparent, we begin to understand "Europe" as a horizon of prosperity, especially in the 1990s. Greece becomes one of the most pro-European societies in Europe, although in the 1990s a limited Euroscepticism, less leftist and more ethnocentric, of the New Far Right begins to emerge.

With the outbreak of the crisis in 2010-2011, for the first time in decades, this "utilitarian" perception of Europe as a guarantee of sustainable development and prosperity is shaken. However, our belonging to the European family was ultimately not seriously questioned, neither at the social level nor at the political level, despite widespread Euroscepticism.

In his recent interview for Rethinking Greece, Professor Yannis Voulgaris said that "the reaffirmation of the country’s European orientation was the ‘conclusion’ reached by the vast majority of citizens that experienced the crisis". Do you agree? What is the meaning of "Europe" today for the Greeks?

So it is. During the crisis, Greek men and women wanted at some point to raise their "voice" in protest against the severe austerity program imposed by our partners in exchange for the financial rescue - let's not forget that Greece suffered the heaviest form of crisis, losing about 25% of its GDP within a few years, a situation comparable to the crisis of 1929, and not at all comparable to the crisis of Portugal, Ireland or Spain.

This was a key parameter of the so-called "anti-memorandum" block, i.e. the social forces reacting to austerity, which of course was impressively expressed by the sweeping victory of ‘NO’ in the 2015 referendum. The political forces that tried to express the dynamics against austerity, New Democracy initially and then SYRIZA, adopted an ambiguous political rhetoric where criticism of the EU coexisted with a desire to "re-found" it. This is what in political science we call "soft Euroscepticism": skepticism about the policies being implemented, but without a desire for a radical break.

If one investigates what the "idea of Europe" meant for the Greeks at that time, e.g. through the indicators of the Eurobarometer, they will find that under the overtones of contention ("Greece did not benefit from joining the EU", "our voice is not heard in Europe"), there was consistently a clear social majority that highly prioritized the euro, that is, our belonging to the hard core of European monetary integration. The image of Europe as a horizon of prosperity may have been seriously, and justifiably, shaken up, and it has not yet been restored, but at the same time it has continued to be perceived as a cornerstone of geopolitical, economic and democratic security and stability. As we gradually emerge from the crisis, our idea of Europe begins to acquire other, old as well as new contents: freedom, democracy, rights.

If this is so, and I think that this is indeed the big picture, we could say that through the serious contention of the "utilitarian" perception of Europe, our belonging to this political and cultural space was confirmed. Which of course should remind us that the meaning of Europe is not given once and for all, but is transformed at every historical turn. 

Demonstrations during the years of the crisis | left: London demonstration in solidarity to Greece, February 2015; right: Athens, "Remain in Europe" demonstration, July 2015

I think that the parameters of economic security, if not prosperity, but also of geopolitical-democratic stability, are fundamental and common among the countries of the European "periphery". In this regard, there is no Greek "exception," as we often thought during the crisis, but we are converging with many European societies, even much more developed ones, such as Italy and Spain.

On the other hand, there is a persistent feeling that we are "outsiders", that on many levels there is an unmitigated distance between us the hard core of "Europe", both economically and culturally. This is also manifested at the political level, where the countries of the "periphery" consider that they are not "heard" as much as they should, or as much as they would like, in the collective bodies of Europe - the harshness with which fiscal adjustment measures were imposed but also the "orientalist" representations of Greece in much of central and northern Europe during the crisis (the rhetoric about “lazy Greeks”) are indicative of this distance that is always latent and at times openly expressed.

Hence, in my opinion, a possible "cure" for this distance could only be a strong European reformism. In the sense of the continuous formation and expansion of common policies – such as on redistribution, taxation or labor policy, for example. Of course, this presupposes a dynamic of deepening the political part of the European project, in a direction of federalization. Which would be a politically and culturally difficult operation, but possibly the only realistic one.

In your opinion, have the recent pandemic crisis and Russia's invasion of Ukraine strengthened the political and social character of the EU?

Here the answer I think would be: yes and no. Historically, Europe deepens as a union through its crises. At the same time, it responds to crises slowly and often in an unsatisfactory way – after all, it is a "heavy" organization, which presupposes the convergence of 27 different countries, 27 different societies, with different and not infrequently conflicting aspirations and interests.

The COVID pandemic, and secondarily perhaps the invasion of the Ukraine, are junctures inscribed in a continuum of crises (or a perma-crisis, according to the apt neologism), where the EU shows an ability to adapt to the contingencies and upheavals of history. The EU "boat" is rocked but it does not sink. It may be slow, but eventually it comes up with common political solutions. Of course, the component of not unified, national management of these crises is equally present. During the pandemic e.g. individual countries took similar measures, but in different ways and at different times. However, on the other hand, the EU's decisive intervention on the vaccine issue, for example, has shown its ability to act decisively, thereby ensuring the public health security of our societies in an unprecedented public health crisis.

This national-supranational "tango" will inevitably follow us for a long time. But as long as Europe continues to react and adapt to its crises in a relatively satisfactory way, the political core of the unification project will stay alive. As long as this aim aligns with the political "demand" of EU societies. For example, the pandemic has highlighted a pan-European demand to strengthen public health systems, a renewed understanding of the "common good". Will the EU be able to respond to these new demands, possibly questioning is previous policy "paths"? This, I think, is one of the EU´s highest stakes of the coming years.

 

 * Interview to Kostas Mavroidis and Ioulia Livaditi; Translation: Ioulia Livaditi

The post Ioannis Balabanidis: The EU´s ability to respond to new social demands is one of the stakes of the coming years appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Greece in Europe 2040 is the product of a working group chaired by ELIAMEP’s President of the Board and Professor at Sciences Po, Paris, Loukas Tsoukalis, and consisting the following Greek experts on European integration: Maria Demertzis, Deputy Director, Bruegel, Brussels; Janis Emmanouilidis, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre, Brussels; Thodoris Georgakopoulos, Editorial Director, diANEOsis; Ruby Gropas, Adviser IDEA, European Commission; George Pagoulatos, Director General of ELIAMEP; Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business and Axel Sotiris Wallden, Senior Policy Adviser ELIAMEP, former official of the European Commission.

ELIAMEP (The Hellenic Foundation For European & Foreign Policy) is a private, independent, non-profit-making research and training institute in Athens that ranked as the number one think tank in Greece by the University of Pennsylvania’s 2019 Global Think Tank Ranking. This report was part of the White Paper on Greece 2040 produced under the auspices of the ‘Greece 2021’ Committee to mark the 200th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence. It is available online by Papazisis Publications (opens pfd link).Below you can read a summary of the report’s main points.

The path taken by the European Union (EU) between now and 2040 will be highly consequential for Greece. After all, Greece’s EU membership is the most significant factor in its foreign policy, as well as being of critical importance for the nation’s economy and public policy in general. As we all know European unification lies at the intersection of foreign and domestic policy.

The report examines the most significant trends that are expected to impact global developments in the years to come -with a focus on demographics, climate change and the technological revolution- as well as Europe’s economic model, societies and political institutions, and its international relations.

Main trends and challenges  | Europe and the international environment 

Europe’s relative import in the global balance of power will decline in the years to come. An ageing Europe with a dwindling population will be called upon to defend common interests and values in an era in which the centre of gravity is moving from West to East, and in a rapidly changing international context with power more broadly distributed and multiple potential ignition points. In other words, the international environment is undergoing major changes and Europe will be able to influence developments and defend its interests only if it acts as a united Europe and not as separate states.

Europe, same as other areas around the world will have to face the immense challenge that is climate change. Despite the many and daunting difficulties, the EU remains a pioneer in tackling climate change with the goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050 and reducing emissions by 55% by 2030. The European Green Deal is expected to be the new largescale joint venture after the single market and the euro. The new package of measures announced by the Commission in the summer of 2021 are consistent with this objective, although their implementation is expected to be extremely difficult.

As far as the digital revolution and new technologies are concerned Europe is at the forefront as a regulatory super-power, however it lags behind in production as it not currently does not have many large high-tech Companies. Countries that can control digital technologies, whether by developing systems internally or by making the best use of them, will increasingly be in a position to mould economic, social and political developments around the world. While Europe has a high level of education, skills and innovation, it does not fulfill the prerequisites for financing high-risk business initiatives. Since the future of productivity lies mainly in the knowledge-based economy that requires high-risk financing of this kind, the EU will need to take important initiatives in this direction, including the creation of a genuine capital markets union.

The report deals as well with the developments inside the EU and its Member States: The new political landscape that has emerged is characterized by fragmentation and diversity. This has made it harder to form ruling majorities, leading to fragile coalition governments and – often – to increased political instability. During this period, the so-called anti-system parties and populist parties have grown in strength. In societies with growing inequalities where the post-war social contract is under ever-growing pressure, the value ascribed to liberal parliamentary democracy, particularly among the younger generations, is increasingly in decline. Participation in elections is falling, and there has been an even greater decrease in membership of political parties. Political fluidity and social uncertainty will be inevitable characteristics during this period. As far as immigration goes, it will continue to be one of the biggest, and most difficult to solve political issues.

The EU’s resilience to the successive crises of recent years, as well as critical decisions that impact on the course of European integration, such as those reached in 2020 with regard to addressing the economic consequences of the pandemic, indicate the considerable importance which national political leaderships ascribe to the survival of the EU, despite the major disagreements that exist over numerous individual issues. The EU’s resilience is also reinforced by the positive image which the majority of its citizens currently have of the European project.

Managing the crisis facing liberal democracy will not be easy. It will require more inclusive economic policies aimed at reducing economic and social inequalities, as well as the intergenerational inequalities that already constitute a major problem. The international environment in which the EU will have to maneuver over the next twenty years will be determined by a number of factors: technological progress, the course of climate change, possible new pandemics, developments in the world economy and economic governance, arms control and nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism. And, of course, by the emergence of other major centres of economic and political power.

The international context will range along the spectrum from a conflict-prone anarchic system to a more organized rule-based global international order of cooperation. The behavior of the major international players, and primarily the US and China, will be decisive, since it is largely these two nations that will set the tone for how global challenges will be addressed, how the world economy and the international legal order will be organized, and how they will deal with one another.

The global power shift from West to East, with the centre of economic and politico-military power moving from the West to the East, from North America and Europe to China, India and other emerging economies, is almost certain to continue. By 2040, there will be a change – most likely radical – in the balance of power. What is much less clear is how the ‘winners’ and the losers’, which will presumably include the EU, will manage this development. In 2040, China will most probably be the world’s leading economic power, If and to what extent the behaviour of this rising China is confrontational will largely depend on how the West reacts.

Five scenarios for the EU of 2040

Scenario 1: The Titanic

The EU falls apart, along with its institutions, exhausted by successive crises that have heightened its internal divisions and which are beyond its institutional capacity to resolve. This extreme scenario entails the dismantling of the European single market and the loss of the right of free movement and settlement within Europe. The rise of nationalism in Europe is accompanied by instability and confrontation between European nations and with third countries. The former EU Member States lose political and economic influence at the global level. Most European countries seek the protection of Great Powers in the context of an asymmetrical relationship of patronage.

Scenario 2: A Minimal Union

The EU is unable to proceed any further towards integration. Member States refuse to grant the EU new areas of competence, the vision of a united Europe is lost, and the path to deeper integration is abandoned. The incomplete monetary union remains prone to crises, which weaken its internal economic, social and political cohesion. The economies on the Euro periphery are particularly vulnerable to crises that lead to rising borrowing costs as well as financial and economic instability. Divided internally, the EU remains at the margins of global developments.

Scenario 3: A Europe of small steps

The Union is characterized by great resilience to crises, from which it often emerges stronger and more united than before. Nonetheless, disagreements over the future of the EU preclude any big steps towards further unification. The implementation of the programmes financed by the Recovery Fund has boosted development in the economically weak EU countries and fed into a trend towards the re-convergence of the euro area economies. The EU is improving its capacity to collaborate on immigration and asylum policy. However, there is still no single European policy, while the protection of external borders remains chiefly the responsibility of individual Member States.

Scenario 4: Coalitions of the willing

A group of EU Member States, led by France and Germany, are moving towards closer integration in specific areas of economic, foreign and/or other policy. The most likely “coalition of the willing” forms around the Eurozone, with decisions being made by qualified majority voting. These countries are moving towards a closer fiscal integration of the euro, setting up a Eurozone budget. The preconditions for a common European immigration and asylum policy start to fall into place. The “coalition of the willing” acquires a regional and international stature that is greater than the sum of its member.

Scenario 5: The United States of Europe

The EU and all its Member States take the historic leap towards a full Political and Economic Union. A Constituent Assembly adopts a European Constitution which transforms the EU into a true federal democracy.The Eurozone becomes a full-fledged economic, fiscal, banking and political union. The EU becomes a powerful guarantor of rights and the rule of law in Europe, it acquires a common foreign and security policy, and the European Defence Union becomes a reality. As a result, the EU develops into an important international power centre, whose strategic autonomy allows it to promote its distinct interests globally.

The “Titanic” and “United States of Europe” are highly unlikely, however in a world undergoing such radical changes and instability they cannot be ruled out completely. The more likely outcomes are to be found in the intermediate scenarios and in possible combinations of two or more scenarios. What it crucial is that all in-between scenarios highlight the serious possibility of a more differentiated EU through the creation of “coalitions of the willing”, meaning there will be forms of enhanced cooperation and unification in which not all the Member States will participate. This has been after all the trend during the past 20, if not 30 years in the EU.

Consequences and choices for Greece

To date, Greece’s EU participation has been marked by the right strategic choices made at critical historic turning points which determined its progress thereafter, by significant diplomatic successes in European negotiations, but also by numerous crises which have affected our relationship with the rest of Europe – far more than Greece’s size would seem to warrant.

Greece’s relationship with European integration is both existential and transactional. It is existential, because in our difficult corner of the world, the country needs powerful allies and a strong Europe as an additional shield. It is also existential because a European pole of democratic, economic and geopolitical stability can both serve as a reference point and contribute crucially to a qualitative upgrading of the Hellenic Republic. Greece’s relationship with the EU is obviously also a transactional relationship, given the enormous importance of European resources and the transfer of know-how for the country’s economic development – provided, however, that the Greek economy can compete successfully in an environment whose rules often reflect the interests of more advanced economies.

For all these reasons, Greece needs a strong and united Europe that will function more as a federation and less as a form of intergovernmental cooperation in which the interests of the more powerful states tend to dominate. In an extremely competitive environment such as the European internal market with a common currency, Greece can maximize the benefits of membership given two preconditions: firstly,that it has a healthy and outward-looking economy that implements its digital and green transformations at top speed, which sometimes requires difficult political choices between competitiveness and social solidarity and, secondly, a strong European policy of cohesion and solidarity. The first condition depends mainly on us, the second clearly much less so.

A third requirement is a modern state that sets the basic parameters and guides the domestic economy – to what degree is a matter of ideological preference – a state that negotiates with competence and flexibility in Brussels and applies Community rules effectively. What is also required is a rudimentary political consensus on the fundamental priorities of Greece’s European and foreign policy. In a more differentiated EU, which is the most likely development in the years to come, the crucial question for Greece is whether it will be able to participate in the “coalitions of the willing” and on what conditions.

A strong country with self-confidence, a modern state, a competitive economy and social cohesion, a minimum of consensus on the fundamental goals of European and foreign policy, ever present in European affairs and decision-making and with well-chosen alliances will clearly be far better placed to join the ‘fast track’ in a multi-speed Europe and influence developments. If Greece is left outside the “coalition of the willing”, however, there is a risk of its falling into a perilous vicious circle of introversion and external insecurity, economic stasis, and instability both political and social. It is precisely this vicious circle we must work to avoid with all the means at our disposal.

 I.L.

The post ELIAMEP Think Tank Report: Greece in Europe 2040 appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

The Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy, Prof. John Chrysoulakis, sent a powerful message on dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and respect for cultural diversity within the framework of the International Conference on “Islam and Human Rights in the European Union” that was recently held in Thessaloniki, Greece (23-25 September 2021). The conference was co-organized by the European Consortium for Church and State Research, the School of Law, the Jean Monnet Center of Excellence “European Constitutionalism and Religion(s)”, and the School of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

John Chrysoulakis started his keynote speech by stressing that the topics chosen for this year's conference could not be more relevant with what is happening in our area nowadays. More specifically, Mr Chrysoulakis noted:

“This side of Europe, Middle East, and North Africa are associated with common history with Greece for thousands of years. Cultures, religious and philosophical systems that were born and flourished in this region were mutually influenced but they were also the basis for the further development of the countries in the wider geographical area. Even the most diverse cultures and religions coexisted and found fertile ground for further development. Muslims, Christians and people of older religions formed multicultural and multi-religious societies in some areas. Nowadays they are threatened by extremist ideas which invoke extreme religious projects and try to turn back times of history reviving forgotten animosities and rivalries.

As it happened in the case of Turkey’s decision to convert to a mosque two brilliant examples that are timeless symbols of the coexistence of peoples, cultures, and religions, the Hagia Sophia and the Church of Chora. Monuments that received, especially for their symbolism, the designation of World Heritage Sites. In fact, Turkey itself, by its own actions was characterizing these two monuments as museums, for almost 80 years, recognizing their inter-religious and intercultural character. However, today regrettably, they cut themselves off from this role and use it for political exploitation, by provoking hostilities and rivalries that had faded many years ago.

Indeed, Greek and Islamic cultures are two elements that are clearly recognized in the history of the Mediterranean Basin. Their contacts and interactions have created historical and cultural ties between the two cultures to such an extent that we could hardly study the historical course of one from the 8th-century onwards, without direct or indirect reference to the other.

In the first steps of Islamic civilization, most of the literary achievements of the Hellenistic world were translated into Arabic, expanding in this way the vocabulary and idioms of the Arabic language. Through this meeting of cultures and the assimilation of the achievements of Greek culture, the spiritual curiosity and enthusiasm of the intellectuals of Islam develop and give new impetus to fields such as medicine, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, architecture, and alchemy. A typical example of this interaction is the exact rendering of Hippocrates' oath in Arabic in the 9th century, as long as the core of Arabic medicine comes from Greek medicine and physiology. Following this tradition path, Arabic medicine has been developed and evolved, promoting science and then dominating through Latin translations in European medicine until the 16th century.

Basic elements of Greek philosophy, found enthusiastic supporters and translators among the intellectuals and philosophers of Islam, who attempted, in the 9th and 10th centuries, to balance between the truth of religious faith and the truth based on the study of human reasoning.

This is reflected exactly in the love for the hoarded knowledge that Greek culture bequeathed to the Arabs. The first organized libraries of the Arab world in the 9th and 10th centuries are centers of study and promotion of science, according to the standards of libraries of the Hellenistic period (Alexandria, Pergamon, Caesarea, Palestine, etc.), thus helping to develop a kind of Arab-Islamic cultural consciousness. At the same time, this contact gave the opportunity to save extracts of the ancient Greek tradition, whose originals were lost, due to their translation into Arabic.

It is interesting to remind that during the time of the great Arab philosophers, Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, or Averroes, it was not easy to find adequate philosophers of that caliber in the West. As a consequence, they began to turn to great personalities of antiquity, who had begun to become accessible thanks to the extensive translation work of Syrian and Arabic translators. Therefore, Islam can be considered, in many respects, as an interlocutor of Greek antiquity and Byzantium playing a particular role in the preservation and cultivation of the Greek cultural heritage for the rest of the world.

The belief in human reasoning skills which has the potential to use its knowledge to organize the human life, on the basis of rights and obligations, which consist the heart of Aristotle’s and Plato’s works, created the core of shaping the concept of human rights in the Islamic world, too.

Islam has recognized basic Human Rights and almost 14 centuries ago, it set up guarantees and safeguards. Unfortunately, based on socio-historical reasons (such as the descent of the Mongols and the destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom in the middle of the 13th century), the cultural expansion was halted against Islam after the 13th century, the religious structures hardened and philosophy was gradually subordinated to theology and formalist jurisprudence, giving the dimension of the attribution of any rights to God.

Thus, the latter tends to become the center of attention even in our days. However, Muslim states aim to promote critical scientific thought, human rights, peaceful coexistence, freedom of religion within the limits set by the principles of that religion. They are slipping indeed in acts that led to the shrinking and introversion of Islam, depriving their countries of every possibility of scientific, political, social, and economic development. The contemporary Islamic practice, in many respects, does not conform to the true principles of Islam. The implementation though of international human rights norms in any society requires thoughtful and well-informed engagement with religion (broadly defined) because of its strong influence on human belief systems and behavior. Let us hope that the public discussion on the issue will bear fruits in the near future.

The contemporary Islamic practice in many respects does not conform to the true principles of Islam. The implementation though of international human rights norms in any society requires thoughtful and well-informed engagement with religion (broadly defined) because of its strong influence on human belief systems and behavior. Let us hope that the public discussion on the issue will bear fruits in the near future.

At that point, Mr Chrysoulakis invited the conference attendees to recall in memory the legacy and practical advice of a powerful personality, whose contribution was a turning point in the history of protection of human rights that consist the fundamental principle of Democracy: the first chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt, who as early as 1958, has stated:

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home -- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighborhood he [or she] lives in; the school or college he [or she] attends; the factory, farm, or office where he [or she] works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world. Thus we believe that the destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities”.

In conclusion, after wishing every success to the Conference’s work, Mr Chrysoulakis expressed his confidence that it will trigger many fruitful thoughts in the future. It should be undoubtedly, a common and peaceful future for all the people of the region. As Greeks, he added, we fully understand this way of thinking because the interaction of our culture allows us to communicate with our neighbor and leads us to a constructive dialogue between us. A fact that effortlessly reminds us of a basic condition that is none other than respect for cultural diversity”.

Read also via GNA: Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy John Chrysoulakis on promoting Greece to the international public; Hagia Sophia: The violation of a symbol

E.S.

The post “Islam and Human Rights in the EU”: Sec Gen for Greeks Abroad and PD, J. Chrysoulakis, sends a powerful message on dialogue, peaceful coexistence, and respect for cultural diversity appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki is dynamically participating in the “Study in Greece” campaign whose aim is to bring international students closer to Greece, by offering challenging and innovative fully English-taught programs (both undergraduate and postgraduate) in a variety of disciplines. The initiative is supported by the General Secretariat of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs and the General Secretariat for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Among others, special mention should be made to the “European Public Diplomacy” course, the first to be taught in a Greek university at postgraduate level, forming an important part of the School of Journalism and Mass Communications Department’s English language Master’s program on “Digital Media, Communication and Journalism”, especially for the second pathway/specialization on “European Journalism”.

Greek News Agenda⃰ spoke to the program’s Director and Holder of Jean Monnet Chair since 2016, Professor of International Relations Christos Frangonikolopoulos** who gave an insight on the program’s learning objectives and comparative advantages. Professor Frangonikolopoulos also shared his perspective on Greece’s 40 years course in the EU and the EU’s role in a changing world, thus contributing to the public dialogue that was recently launched in Greece and throughout Europe, in the framework of the Conference on the Future of Europe.

Why should a potential student choose the Aristotle University's MA program on “Digital Media, Communication and Journalism”? What are its comparative advantages, taking into consideration the plethora of similar study programs around the world?

The School of Journalism and Mass Communications has in recent years repeatedly featured among the top 50 Media/Communications Schools of Europe and is a member of the European Journalism Teaching Association. Its English-taught MA program builds on its 25-year long experience in training international students in its tailor-made English-taught program for Erasmus students. Above all, it is based on the School’s 30 year-long success in promoting learning through theory-building, cutting edge technical skills, and professional training, and reflects its steadfast commitment to innovation, excellence, interdisciplinary education, and international outlook.

What makes our Master’s program relevant is the consistent integration of the students' study, skills, and projects to the real world. Innovation and thoughtfulness have always been the only route for students, but I can’t think of a more critical time than now, in our highly complex, risk-ridden, globalized, and networked societies, for all thinking to become more methodical, reflexive, and innovative. We look for students who are eager to take on more challenges, to learn more about themselves and about the world, to reach their full potential. Our faculty, all active scholars and researchers, are committed to helping students succeed in their pursuits. Together we work to make each student’s experience at Aristotle University a rich and fulfilling one that broadens his or her intellectual and professional horizons.

You have been awarded twice a Jean Monnet Chair on European Journalism Integration (2016-2019) and European Public Diplomacy (2020-23). Could you provide insight into the Jean Monnet Chair on European Public Diplomacy, regarding the learning objectives of the course and/or other activities planned as part of this prestigious position?

During the last decade, the European Union is often misunderstood and seen in negative terms. The crisis of the Eurozone, the refugee crisis, and the Covid-19 pandemic, exacerbated the criticism on the usefulness of European integration, contributing to the development of a significant gap between what the EU has accomplished and how the wider public, internally and externally perceives it. In fact, given that most of the complex and interlinked crises that trouble the EU have not been resolved, the EU and its members are not only characterized by fragmentation, distrust, increased divergence, social and political cleavages, but also by the inability to fairly balance national interests and frustration with today’s Union.

Bearing that in mind, the Chair on European Union Public Diplomacy has launched a teaching and research program exploring and identifying how to use Public Diplomacy to increase connections and shape perceptions in and outside the EU. The Chair is addressed mainly to the School’s undergraduate and postgraduate students but is also open to students of other Departments of the University.Τhe Chair focuses not only on theoretical issues or descriptive accounts of EU PD, but also pays attention to practical issues and skills that are in short supply.

Through publications, workshops, seminars, and conferences, the Chair brings together students, academics, journalists, and civil society representatives to (a) investigate the role of the media and civil society in contemporary and future EU PD, (b) discuss and explore how to reshape EUPD through regular and informed public dialogue, (c) explore how EUPD can invest in analysis, synthesis and dissemination by creating hubs for discussion, argumentation, counter-argumentation and feedback, (d) develop a reflective process that helps to understand the shortcomings and deficiencies of EU policies, and (e) explore how PD can be expanded to become the means for the improvement of the EU’s domestic and foreign policies.

The past decade has seen major and unprecedented shifts in international politics. In your view, where does Europe stand, today, in a changing world?

The EU has championed multilateralism as the core of its approach to global politics. However, not only do member states disagree on global security and foreign policy issues, but the EU also has to face challenges to the basic philosophy and practices of the international liberal order, like those posed by Russia, China, and populist leaders such as Trump. The EU appears to be vulnerable and weak in the “battle of narratives” regarding the global order. Both China and Russia have stepped up their interference in Europe and its neighborhood to attempt to portray the EU – and democratic systems more generally – as too weak and too slow to contain the pandemic. These efforts fall on fertile ground as the financial crisis, the political controversies sparked by large-scale migration, and the covid-19 pandemic have shaken the core of public confidence. This reality, however, should also provide the opportunity for the EU to work towards a global order that is in line with its strategic interests. This requires not only working on strengthening multilateralism but also on policies that allow the EU to provide stability in its wider periphery, to uphold and protect global trade, to deal more effectively with migration, and to set global standards for emerging technologies.

Pandemics, in particular, have traditionally had a pronounced effect on world politics. From your perspective, what are the main challenges lying ahead for the EU in the post-covid19 era?

The covid-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated that interdependence is and will remain a central pillar of global politics and European integration. More and enhanced cooperation among member states, citizens, and the institutions of the EU will facilitate a debate and effort to apply higher standards for the protection of the environment and other global public goods (such as human rights, human security, public health). In a world where the borders between what can be defined and understood as foreign and domestic policy are very difficult, the EU with its economic power and global regulatory powers is not only in a position to deal with today’s most urgent challenges but is also in a position to develop an extrovert and outward strategy.

The Conference on the Future of Europe was recently launched. What is to expect from this promising initiative?

The Conference on the Future of Europe underlines that the success of the EU will not only depend on its ability to enhance its engagement in global politics, but also on its ability to reinvent its democratic processes. The EU’s problem in trying to convince, internally and externally, about its positions/policies, is not only related to the content, but also to the way the institutions communicate the content. Its strategic communication is mainly one-sided, focused mainly on the need to provide information. Rationality and promises of a positive future do not sell. And rightly so, as the deep economic, social, and technological transformations of the 21st-century touch on and are related with sensitive questions of identity and community. If the EU desires to assist its citizens to adapt to a rapidly changing world, it can only resolve this disconnection by facilitating support for difficult and collective political decisions.

Greater benefits can be reaped if a discursive approach to political debate and participation is employed. The political debate needs to focus on the principal issues of global politics and engage the public in an open debate, with the aim to communicate standpoints, but also listen and reply to potential counter-arguments and, in some cases, even incorporate some of them into final policies. In the absence of discursive procedures, policies are not thoroughly explicated, and there is an accountability, transparency, and integrity deficit that makes EU politics more obscure and problematic. Discursive procedures can be helpful in three directions: (a) getting across to the broad public arguments and ideas, (b) gaining a deep mutual understanding through the study of the perspectives, and (c) receiving potentially helpful insights.

The use of new technologies can be very helpful in the conduct of such strategic discursive processes in a number of ways. The creation of official sites sponsored fora where citizens of the EU can express their opinions and comments and ask critical questions that will receive replies is one option. Second, online interviews with officials can be organized. This way, citizens would see their queries answered and official policies fully explained. These initiatives could bear several positive effects: (a) they are by themselves a trust-building measure, (b) they allow dialogue to flourish, and (c) shortcomings and contradictions of current policies can be spotted and scrutinized; officials can learn by the exchange of ideas, which may lead to the improvement of policies. At the same time, the governments and institutions of the EU should co-operate closely with NGOs and academic institutions whose activities center on these issues. Creating open access networks of dialogue amongst member states, the institutions of the EU, NGOs, and the public is conducive to profound discursive processes that can help the definition and framing of the parameters of the problem and the designation and implementation of responding policies. In a nutshell, discursive public procedures are an indispensable foreign policy tool for the twenty-first century. They aim to adjust to the changes that have taken place in the international system in the last decades and focus on addressing the public and creating solid partnerships with the less appreciated and reckoned with global actors, the citizens of the EU.

2021 marks the 40th anniversary of Greece’s accession to the EU family. In your opinion, what is the particular relationship between Greece and Europe; what were the main lessons learned so far - what are the ways forward and prospects ahead?  

Greece’s relation and position towards the EEC/EU is complex characterized by many fluctuations and contradictions, determined by internal political developments, the strategies, and perceptions of political leaders, as well as the trends or transformations of European politics. Beginning in the 1970s, when Greece applied for membership in the EEC, a strong anti-European narrative developed, which projected the country as a “victim” of the periphery. This narrative did not succeed in becoming dominant. Following the end of the Cold War, and despite the growing support to a conservative anti-Western/anti-European position expressed by a group of religious/political figures in the 1990s, 60+% of Greek society supported Greece’s participation in the EU. This pro-European position was associated with the economic development, increasing consumption, and affluence that was made possible with the funds injected into the Greek economy by the EU. The debt crisis changed this condition. By 2014, according to the Eurobarometer, only 33% viewed Greece’s participation in the EU positively. It was only in 2019 that support for the EU returned to the level of the previous decades. The vast majority of Greeks, however, maintained that the bailouts damaged, rather than helped the country’s growth and that Greece could have overcome the crisis on its own, without aid from Europe. What does this indicate? It indicates that perceptions of the EU are ambivalent and cautious. This becomes all the more important when considering that the consequences of the pandemic may end up in consolidating new cleavages, with tremendous repercussions, within the political system and society of Greece.

It is clear that Greece can no longer afford to move forward with such misconceptions. Especially, when considering the challenges facing the EU, as well as the debate on the future of the EU. To do so Greece needs to: [1] to recognize its position within the EE as well as the contribution of the EU to its development, (b) decide how the country will deal, comprehend and interpret its past and the contradictions associated with the dominant “underdog” political culture, (c) decide how identity conceptions and roles within the EU must be redefined in light of new regional and global problems. The Prespes Agreement and the resolution of the conflict with Northern Macedonia indicate that Greece desires to emerge and operate as a pillar of stability and cooperation for the EU. A powerful and stable Greece requires a powerful and stable EU. Greece should invest in a strong and cohesive EU, emphasizing the need for: (a) the further integration of the economic and financial union, (b) the enhancement of the EU’s social policies, (c) the promotion of a more cohesive European defense policy, (d) the promotion of a more complete migration/refugee strategy, with emphasis on fairer allocation and the adoption of a common asylum system, (e) the treatment of the democratic deficit and (f) the revision of the Treaties and their replacement with a single constitutional treaty that is understandable by the citizens of the EU.

*Interview by Eleftheria Spiliotakopoulou

**Christos Frangonikolopoulos studied Politics and Government (BA Honors) and International Relations (PhD) at the University of Kent at Canterbury (England). He has worked as a diplomatic newspaper correspondent (1995-2003) and advisor to the Greek Parliament (1997-2003). In 2004-05 he also worked for public television. He combines a significant research output with practical experience. His research interests and teaching have an interdisciplinary character, combining international relations and European Integration with European Journalism. He has published, co-published, edited, and co-edited ten (10) books in Greece and abroad, and academic articles in over 40 edited books and peer-reviewed journals.

Professor Frangonikolopoulos is a Holder of Jean Monnet Chair since 2016. Jean Monnet Chairs are awarded through a highly competitive process by the European Commission through the EU’s Erasmus+ program. The position is awarded based on promoting excellence in teaching and research on EU studies, fostering debate around European issues, encouraging active citizenship, and disseminating knowledge to the wider public, critically and objectively.

MA on “Digital Media, Communication and Journalism” AT A GLANCE

See also on GNA:

• Study in Greece: International Master's Programs taught in English or visit the “Study in Greece” portal
• 40 years of Greece's membership in the EU
• Quo Vadis Europa past interviews

For more info about the Conference on the Future of Europe:

• Visit the EU’s official micro-site, and the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ specially designated digital platform, Facebook page, and Twitter account.
• Read also, the Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs Miltiadis Varvitsiotis’ address at the celebration for the 40 years of Greece – EU and the Conference on the Future of Europe (Zappeion, Athens 27.05.2021).

E.S.

The post Quo Vadis Europa | International Relations Professor Christos Frangonikolopoulos on Jean Monnet Chair, Greece’s 40 years course in the EU and the Future of Europe appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

It has been forty years since Greece joined the European Union (EU) in 1981, named at the time European Economic Community. A series of activities has been scheduled to celebrate Greek membership to the EU throughout 2021 and this was announced last week in a joint event by the Hellenic Parliament, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Representation of the European Commission in Greece and the European Parliament Office in Greece. The activities aim at underlining the importance of Greece’s accession to the EU family, while encouraging citizens to express their opinion about the Future of Europe.

From the Association Agreement to the Accession

The journey of Greece to the EU started in 1959 when the country applied for association with the newly established European Economic Community (EEC) leading to an Association Agreement between Greece and the EEC, signed in June 1961. The Agreement was suspended after the military coup in Greece in 1967 and it was re-activated only after the restoration of democracy in the country in 1974. Wishing to stabilize its political system and its democratic institutions as well as reinforce its economic development and strengthen its geopolitical position, Greece officially submitted its application for full accession to the EEC on June 12, 1975.

The Greek prime minister Konstantinos Karamanlis, who was firm advocate of the European Community project and Greece’s accession, succeeded in convincing the Heads of States and Governments of the nine member states at the time, to start the accession negotiations with no delay. Greece expressed its readiness to accept the entire body of Community legislation, the "Community acquis", and the accession negotiations concluded in May 1979, with the signing of the Treaty of Accession in Athens at Zappeion Megaron. The Accession took place two years later, on January 1, 1981.

Signing Ceremony of the Treaty of Accession in Athens at Zappeion Megaron (Source: EC - Audiovisual Service, European Communities, 1979)

The Greek membership

Greece’s request during the first years of its membership concerning further economic support in order to restructure its economy led to the Integrated Mediterranean Programs (IMPs) approved in 1985. The Programs also supported the Mediterranean regions of France and Italy in view of the forthcoming enlargement to include Spain and Portugal and led to one of the central policies of the EU, the Cohesion and Structural Policy. This Policy aims to reinforce economic, social, and territorial cohesion in the EU supporting the poorest regions of the Union.

Greece has also been part of major EU’s milestones such as the Single Market and the Single Currency established in the emblematic Treaty of Maastricht (1992), while it was among the first countries that adopted the euro in 2001. Having supported the development of joint policy in new areas such as education, health, and environment Greece was also in favor of the strengthening of supra-national institutions such as the European Commission and European Parliament opting for a stronger EU.

Signing Ceremony of the accession treaty of the New Member States of the EU at Stoa of Attalos (Acropolis), Romano Prodi, President of the EC, Athens, on 16/04/2003 (Source: EC - Audiovisual Service, European Communities, 2003)

EU membership has helped Greece modernize its state, ameliorate its infrastructures, strengthen its economy and accelerate social progress. It is not by accident that these last forty years have been for Greece an uninterrupted period of political stability, peace, democracy, and prosperity despite the recent economic crisis. In spite of their rising doubt about the EU in recent years, Greeks support the Union and Greek membership even asking for a greater role for institutions such as the European Parliament and for more solidarity within the EU concerning the economy, migration etc. According to a recent EU public opinion survey (Socio-demographic trendlines - EP Eurobarometer, Edition 7 - Feb 2021) Greeks in their majority (56%) think that “Greece’s membership to the EU is a good thing”, while a majority of 65% think that “Greece has on balance benefited from being a member of the EU”.

Greek Presidencies of the European Council

Greece has held the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU five times until now, in 1983 when Greece proposed the establishment of regional financing to remove inequalities, in 1988, when the Greek Presidency took initiatives to discuss major issues relating to the future role of the Community including the promotion of new policy areas like the Unified Social Charter and social coherence in the Community, in 1994 when the Greek Presidency promoted the prospect of EU enlargement towards the south and east of Europe so as to ensure stability, development and collaboration in the region, in 2003 when the largest wave of enlargement in the history of the EU took place with the signing of 10 Accession Treaties at the foot of the Acropolis. Greece’s fifth Presidency in 2014 which took place amid severe economic crisis in the EU and rising public criticism, aimed at finding realistic solutions to hard issues such as the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union, the support to growth and employment, the asylum, borders and migration management etc.

The logos of the last three Greek EU presidencies (1994, 2003,2014)

The Program of the Activities

The program of celebrations "Greece-EU: stronger together for 40 years” will include throughout 2021:

· A joint main event on the occasion of 9 May (Europe Day), focusing on the EU's contribution to modern Greece
· A regional dimension with events in all regions in order to stress the Union's tangible contribution to local communities (in cooperation with the Regions, the Europe Direct Information Centres, volunteers of the together.eu network and local media)
· Public discourse in the media and social media on assessing the impact of our membership
· Testimonies/interviews with the leading figures of our country’s membership in the EU on television networks and social media
· Collection and broadcasting of Greek citizens’ testimonies on the EU's footprint at their place of residence, in cooperation with European Information Centres, the network of European Parliament Ambassador Schools and the together.eu volunteer network (creation of an audiovisual library per area/region & utilisation at local events)
· Issuance of a postage stamp commemorating 1981-2021 - 40 years since the accession of Greece to the European Union.

From the illumination of the Hellenic Parliament building's façade with the logo of the 40-year anniversary (Source: Permanent Representation of the EC website)

Read also via GNA

40 years since the treaty of Athens | Archive exhibition on the European trajectory of Greece
Quo vadis Europa? | A Franco-Greek conversation about Europe and its future: two interviews following the “Days of Athens” forum
Think Tanks | Kevin Featherstone on LSE's Hellenic Observatory and the concept of 'union' in the EU
Quo Vadis Europa? | Nikos Mouzelis on the future of Capitalism and Europe
Quo Vadis Europa? I Karl-Heinz Lambertz: "Cohesion policy is the ultimate expression of European solidarity"

I.E.

The post 40 years of Greece’s membership to the EU appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Commissioner Johansson had actually had the opportunity to meet with Minister for Migration and Asylum Panagiotis Mitarachi earlier on that same day; following that meeting, they announced the creation of a temporary framework for the voluntary return of 5000 migrants that arrived on Greek islands before January 1 2020. This framework will offer an incentive of 2000 euros to each participating individual currently residing in reception centres, with funding from the EU. Returns will be implemented in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration and FRONTEX.

The Greek government’s global approach to the European migration crisis was anew firmly stated during the Council of EU Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in Brussels the following day, March 13 2020. The Greek side made clear that for a solution to the migration crisis to be viable, it has to be based on the foundational principles of fairness and solidarity among member-states. Along these lines, Greek representative Alternate Minister for Migration and Asylum Giorgos Koumoutsakos spoke on behalf of all frontline member-states, which are Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, and Malta. Mr Koumoutsakos expressed their common concerns and views. These suggestions first of all address the creation of an efficient system for the management of normal migration flows, as well as sudden surges. Secondly, the creation of a common framework for the return of migrants. In a long-term perspective, the Greek side stressed the need for a common system for the distribution and the prompt evaluation of asylum applications, beyond their current concentration in frontline countries as prescribed by the Dublin regulation. The recent external threats on the eastern Greek borders also rendered urgent the further enhancement of European external borders, including supplementary funding, ad hoc interventions, border patrolling cooperation, anti-trafficking initiatives, humanitarian aid initiatives and cooperation in migrant returns. Finally, Greece stressed the increased importance that legal migration and social integration should hold in the elaboration of any future EU migration policy.

*Intro Photo: Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis discusses with European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson at the Maximos Mansion in Athens, March 12 2020 (Source: AMNA/Dimitris Papamitsos)

D.G.

The post Greek initiatives for the protection of European borders and a common EU migration policy appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

The Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens is hosting the exhibition “40 years since the signing of the Treaty of Accession of Greece to the European Communities” from November 25th to December 19th; the exhibition is organized by the Service of Diplomatic and Historical Archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs in cooperation with the “Konstantinos G. Karamanlis” Foundation. The exhibits consist of written documents, photographs, and audiovisual material of a total length of 45 minutes that recount the meetings and negotiations between national and European representatives that led to the signing of the Treaty on May 28th 1979; the latter took place during an impressive ceremony at the Zappeion Hall in Athens.

The exhibition largely focuses on the emblematic figure of Konstantinos Karamanlis, while at the same time bringing to the fore the particular stakes of the 1970s that enhanced the accession of Greece to the European communities. One should note that this same period coincides with the democratic transition of Greece, as well as with those of Portugal and Spain. However, Greece led the way in this “Mediterranean” accession round, something for which Konstantinos Karamanlis is very often credited with, thanks to his efforts and personal commitment in the European community project since the 1950s. The archives located at the “Konstantinos G. Karamanlis” Foundation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs offer important resources regarding the leading actors and the contours of European integration during this period (Minotos 2008, Tomai 2006).

A particular historical context

As noted by Eirini Karamouzi, the signing of the Treaty in 1979 signaled the culmination of a long process begun in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Greece became the first country to be granted association status in 1961 (2017). Following the fall of the military junta and the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1974, PM Konstantinos Karamanlis submitted Greece’s accession application in 1975, with the aim of solidifying the country’s position within the western geopolitical framework and consolidating its governance and market-economy system. This divergence from the traditional affiliation with the USA signaled a novel “multilateralism” which would have seemed practically difficult a few years before, but became necessary in the 1970s, given the anti-USA and anti-NATO resentment of the majority of Greek people in the aftermath of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the 1967-1974 military dictatorship (Karamouzi 2017).

1979 also stands as a first major turning point vis-à-vis the European perspective for the politics of Andreas Papandreou and the social-democratic opposition party of PASOK; the latter party, which rose to power in October 1981, a few months after the official entry of Greece into the European Communities on 1st January 1981, was to fully adapt to the European norm starting from the mid-1980s (Nafpliotis 2018).

It is also fitting to note that, as Karamouzi suggests (2017), the accession of Greece to the European Communities in 1979 constituted a significant milestone for the history of European integration itself; firstly, the entry of Greece, followed by Spain and Portugal, signaled a gradual change in the characteristics of EEC members –newcomers were also newly democratized and less developed states rather than established market economies and democracies; secondly, this “Mediterranean” accession round was largely conditioned by geopolitical calculations within the context of the Cold War, given the fluid political situation in these recent democracies with their multiple political potentialities (Karamouzi 2017, also Klapsis 2014). In fact, this period coincided with the reduction of British troops and an increased soviet presence in the Mediterranean, while at the same time revealed the limits of American geopolitical reach in the region (Karamouzi 2017).

The emergence of democratic reasoning in Community identity

On a discursive level, De Angelis and Karamouzi (2016) suggest that the conjuncture of the 1970s, as exemplified in the case of Greek accession, also signals the gradual introduction of a primarily political reasoning in the construction of a European community identity, at least in comparison with the European project’s initial economic principles since the 1950s. The period of the Greek dictatorship and the ambivalent or problematic position of certain powerful European states in regards to the junta allowed the EEC to emerge more or less as a discursive guarantor of democratic rights in the manner of the Council of Europe. When it came to Greece, political (that is, non economic) reasoning and democratic rhetoric also met the particular imagery and symbolism that Greece bore as the so-called “cradle of democracy” (De Angelis et Karamouzi 2016, also Klapsis 2014, Minotos 2008). Academic debate still persists regarding the actual motivations of European and Greek leaders during this period and today it seems that analyses stressing the geopolitical concerns behind Greek accession outnumber arguments pointing to short-term “economic” considerations (for example see Klapsis 2014).

Originally published on Grecehebdo.gr. Adapted to English by Dimitris Gkintidis

D. G.

The post 40 years since the treaty of Athens | Archive exhibition on the European trajectory of Greece appeared first on Greek News Agenda.