Konstantina E. Botsiou is Professor of History and international Relations at the Department of International and European Relations of the University of Piraeus. She was previously Associate Professor at the University of the Peloponnese (Corinth), where she also served as Vice Rector. Since 2016 she is Visiting Professor at the Hellenic National Defense College (HNDC) and serves on the board of Directors of the Council for International Relations-Greece. From 2001 until 2018 she was Director of Publications, General Director and Vice President of the Konstantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy.

Her publications focus on modern and contemporary history, European integration, the Cold War, Balkan history, Euro-Atlantic relations, political parties, defense and foreign policy. She has authored, co-authored and edited over 15 books and 150 academic articles, among them the books 1821. From the Revolution to the State (in Greek, 2021), The Balkans in the Cold War (2017) and The founders of the European Integration (2012).

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne,* Professor Botsiou spoke to Rethinking Greece** on what elements made the Treaty such a solid foundation for Greek-Turkish reconciliation; on the anti-revisionist policy adopted by both counties at the time; the “cruel novelty” of the mandatory population exchange between Greece and Turkey; the Treaty’s contribution to the wider region’s geopolitical balance; and finally on why, as a multilateral peace treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne cannot be amended.

The Lausanne Treaty provided the foundation for a peaceful co-existence between Greece and Turkey during many decades. What do you believe were the elements of the Treaty that made this possible?

A combination of factors made possible the peaceful coexistence, mainly anti-revisionism after defeat of both Greece and Turkey. This made entanglement in a new war unattractive since neither country believed that the gains would exceed the losses. The nature of the dual Treaty of Lausanne as a) a Peace Treaty of the Allies with the Ottoman Empire for the First World War and b) as a replacement for the ill-fated Treaty of Sevres provided a solid fundament for Greek-Turkish conciliation on the basis of mutual defeat. The paramount aim of the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923) regarding Greece and Turkey was to exclude future bilateral wars that could by definition endanger the international balance of power. This aim was mostly served by a) the compulsory exchange of populations and b) the clauses regarding demilitarization. These clauses enhanced bilateral rapprochement since neither country would be able to attack each other. At the same time, both countries would act as a joint bulwark against pressures from the North, thus serving the strategy of the Allies who considered Bolshevik Russia -later the Axis- the major threat of the interwar years. By uniting the eternal Russian danger with the communist threat, the new Bolshevik regime posed a geopolitical and ideological danger to the balance of powers in Europe despite Stalin’s preference for inward-looking reconstruction. Britain’s instrumental role in Greek-Turkish arrangements at Lausanne reflected London’s suspicion towards its diehard rival in Eastern Europe. That global element convinced the two countries that they could share the geography that was created by war in order to play a stabilizing international role and use their geopolitical position for building up their war-ridden societies.

In your announcement at the ELIAMEP Conference for the 100 years of the Lausanne Treaty, you mentioned that it was (and still is) a modern Treaty. Could you expand on that?

The Treaty of Lausanne has demonstrated remarkable durability. A key aspect of its longevity was the fact that it simultaneously ended the First World War with the Ottoman Empire that was about to become modern Kemalist Turkey (it was founded three months after the Treaty, namely on 29 October 1923), on the one hand, and turned the page in its relations with the Allies, including Greece, on the other. Both countries adopted an anti-revisionist policy which was sustained in the Second World War and in the Cold War. In the Second World War half of the 8 countries that signed the Treaty of Lausanne followed a revisionist policy and cooperated with the Axis, but not Greece and Turkey. Greece remains on the same line to this day, whereas Turkey adopts revisionist claims. Nevertheless, the Western orientation of the two countries unites their broader interests as they were tied together at the  Treaty of Lausanne, originally with Britain as the closest ally, later the USA.

In the same announcement, you characterized the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, as a “cruel novelty”. How would you evaluate, 100 years on, the impact of this population exchange on both countries?

The Lausanne Treaty initiated a century of peace or “no-war” – as it was once described in the 1980s- between Greece and Turkey despite their dispute and the Turkish invasion in Cyprus in 1974. Thus, the Treaty was a turning point from the past considering the continuous Greek-Turkish wars in the previous century. The exchange of populations was considered a prerequisite for this, in order to deprive both countries from extensive rights over large minorities and terminate territorial claims that were based on their existence. The exchange was actually compulsory, quite a departure from the voluntary exchanges that were not infrequent at that time; one had already taken place between Greece and Bulgaria after the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (1919). Eleftherios Venizelos himself had contemplated an exchange of populations also with Turkey in 1914 to stop Turkish persecutions in Macedonia and Thrace. It came almost 10 years later, but this time in a compulsory form. That qualitative difference that sought to eradicate any roots of grievances was indeed a prerequisite for the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. The relevant agreement was signed 6 months earlier, on the 30^th of January 1923. The exchange of populations was brutal for the people and the countries involved, especially Greece that had to deal with both defeat and urgent social conditions. Hence, the exchange was a “cruel novelty”. It entailed deep human suffering; at the same time, it created conditions of national homogeneity when nationalism was at its peak and enabled Greek-Turkish rapprochement, even Greek-Turkish alliance in the coming years. The re-settlement of refugees was quite an accomplishment, owed greatly to the intensive efforts of the American-led Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC) which completed it within a few years (1924-30). However, it took the refugees generations to become incorporated and accepted in Greece’s society, whereas several refugees longed for substantial reparations for the properties they had left behind or even believed in repatriation. In 1930 those expectations proved futile as the governments of the two countries signed several treaties including a Treaty of Friendship in Ankara and decided to a mutually quit refugee compensations. Geopolitically that transformed reconciliation into friendship. Politically it cost dearly, foremost to Venizelos, who lost thousands of refugee votes in the 1932 general elections. But Greece and Turkey stressed national homogeneity as a source of power and sovereignty against external pressures.

The Lausanne Treaty was a multi-lateral treaty, with eight signatories. What would you say was the Treaty’s contribution, not just to Greece-Turkey relations, but to the geopolitical balance in the wider region?

The death of the “sick man of Europe” as the Ottoman Empire had been characterized in the previous century resulted in a new balance of powers among smaller nation states in the Balkans which started anew on an equal basis with their century-old opponent. The national life of those states also began when communism was a rising ideological force in Europe. For that reason, Greece and Turkey were integrated into the broader strategy of the Western Great Powers against Bolshevik Russia. In a way, the Western orientation of Greece and Turkey started with the Treaty of Lausanne.  The Treaty also granted territorial stability in the Middle Eastern territories that were regulated by the colonial powers at Lausanne. When they became independent countries they aspired to specific borders that were set then in order to avert destabilizing external influences, Turkish or Russian.

Today’s regional wars upset that stability as the Arab spring and the War in Syria have shown. The most important change, though, is Turkey’s effort to emerge as regional hegemon which reminds of the unwelcome Ottoman past to all countries of the region. This is also a main source of Greek-Turkish tensions which take place against a difficult geography as both countries are members of NATO and share access to the chokepoints of the Mediterranean (Straits, Suez Canal). Still, Turkey does not seem determined to change the status quo created by the treaty as it would risk destabilizing the entire region and this would undermine the interests of its powerful allies like US and NATO. The collision of Turkey with Israel is a sign of Ankara’s difficulty to play the Muslim card and at the same time remain a Western country.

What is the legacy of the Lausanne Treaty now? What would you answer to claims that the treaty “expires” and has to be revised?

As is well known, the Treaty of Lausanne is a multilateral peace treaty and not a bilateral Greek-Turkish Treaty. Peace Treaties are not amended even before the Vienna International Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) was enacted, because they define borders and territorial regimes. Turkey’s efforts to revise the part of the Treaty that concerns Greek-Turkish relations cannot be acceptable since the Treaty is a coherent legal entity including 28 acts. Only one part regulates Greek-Turkish relations after the Asia Minor War. On the other hand, the Treaty facilitated Greek-Turkish rapprochement, for instance through demilitarization, but did not link demilitarization with sovereignty as Turkey claims today. Thus, Ankara neglects the bilateral revision of the relevant clauses, de jure with the Montreux Treaty (1936) on the eve of the Second World War, de facto in the Cold War after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Last but not least, to state only a few examples, Turkey also questions Greek sovereignty over Dodecanese islands although it resigned from all rights and privileges on them since they were ceded to Italy under the Treaty of Lausanne. Ankara’s attitude today shows a propensity to revise the entire status in the Aegean Sea as part of a hegemonic Turkish strategy towards neighboring Greece. Greece is regarded as a geopolitical obstacle to fulfil that strategy and the Treaty of Lausanne is regarded as a legal obstacle to this political endeavor that blurs crucial chapters of modern world history.

** The Treaty of Lausanne, the most enduring of the post-World War I peace accords, is a historic treaty signed on July 24, 1923, establishing national borders in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, with the aim of restoring peace in the region after the disastrous First World War. The treaty was signed by the Republic of Turkey, which had succeeded the defeated Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and by the Allied and Associated Powers (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Greece, Serbia and Romania), on the other hand. One of the most radical elements of the Treaty of Lausanne, particularly from a humanitarian point of view, is the obligatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey.

** Interview to Ioulia Livaditi

Read also from Greek News Agenda

• Rethinking Greece | Evanthis Hatzivassiliou on the Treaty of Lausanne and its enduring legacy
• Conference | 100 Years since the Treaty of Lausanne: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
• Rethinking Greece | Davide Rodogno: Multilateralism plus prevention is a way of imagining a better future in humanitarian interventions
• Rethinking Greece | Emilia Salvanou on the Greek-Turkish population exchange after 1922 and the making of Greek refugees' memory

The post Rethinking Greece | Konstantina Botsiou on the ongoing geopolitical legacy of the Lausanne Treaty appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Ino Afentouli is the Executive Director of the Institute of International Relations (IDIS), a research institute affiliated to the Department of International and European Studies at Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. During 2002-2022, she served as Program Manager at NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division. Prior to joining NATO, she was a journalist specialized in foreign and European affairs and she worked for many Greek media outlets, as well as for the Greek edition of Economist Intelligence Unit.

For her work, she was awarded with the Calligas prize attributed by the European Journalists Association. She is a founding member of the Israeli-Hellenic Forum and the Greek-Turkish Forum, and the author of three books and numerous articles. Her latest publication is a monograph titled Public Diplomacy (2023, in Greek).

Ino Afentouli spoke to Greek News Agenda* and French publication Grèce Hebdo* on public diplomacy in a multi-polar world; technology and social media as vital tools for an effective public diplomacy; how the Greek Diaspora can be Greek public diplomacy´s “superweapon”; culture as suitable vehicle for projecting soft power, the need for Greece to promote its modern face and creators, and finally, the elements that constitute Greece’s positive international image and the importance of pairing that image with a methodical and long-term communication strategic plan.

From your experience as a Program Manager at NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division, how do you think the increasing multi-polarity of the international system and the decline of multi-lateralism is affecting international organizations? Can they practice effective public diplomacy under these circumstances?

International organizations – the United Nations, NATO, the EU, but also smaller ones such as OSCE, OECD and ASEAN, consist of many member states and operate in a multinational environment. Pluralism is nothing new in their structure and operation; therefore, the exercise of public diplomacy for them has always had – in terms of its design and implementation – a background of multilateralism. The international environment was never monophonic. For example, during the Cold War, there were two dominant blocs and each exerted influence on the international environment according to its capabilities. In the post-Cold War era, the international scene acquired more players, and a corresponding communication activity.

Perhaps, the most significant difference in comparison to the immediate past, is that today, we once again have strong players on the international stage, such as the US and China, trying to exert influence from an almost equal footing. US dominance in communication was a given for many decades, not only because US foreign policy placed great importance on public diplomacy, but also because the “American way of life” was exportable and attractive to millions of people outside the US. And it still is. China is trying to put forward an alternative model but it is not comparable.

As far as multilateral organizations are concerned, their communication efforts have always served the political priorities set by their members. The implementation of communication strategies with the means they have at their disposal is the responsibility of their respective divisions. It is indeed more complicated to exercise public diplomacy today, not so much because of the proliferation of protagonists in the international scene, but mainly because of the communication environment that social media predominance has created. There are many players on the international stage and often, institutional discourse is seen as "wooden," rigid and unsuitable for the social media environment. International organizations are therefore forced to adapt and use social media for their communication, as well as engage with the protagonists of social media, i.e. influencers.

One of One of the five core foreign policy goals of the 2020-2025 Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is "the promotion and advancement of Greece’s foreign policy positions and the country’s global image" a phrasing that refers to public diplomacy. What do you think are the next steps that should be taken in order for the country to fully develop the tool of public diplomacy?

The fact that Greek diplomacy is putting emphasis on public diplomacy as well is very positive. For Greece, the projection of soft power should be a key dimension of its foreign policy; Greece is a peaceful country, committed to the principles of international law and without revisionist tendencies compared to countries in the region. Moreover, the country possesses strong and unique features that are recognized worldwide. When I say features, I am referring to Greek culture, history, the connection of Western civilization with Greek antiquity, but also the country’s natural beauty. Greece has primarily a positive imprint on the world map. However, if it is not combined with a methodical and long-term strategic communication, this image alone is not enough for the country to defend its points of view in international audiences and especially to convince of their validity.

It is important that Greece projects a positive image to its millions of visitors, as well as to the much larger number of potential visitors, through communication actions related to tourism. But this positive image, which can also be conveyed through the visitors' social media photos and videos, does not automatically translate to support for issues that are significant to Greece in terms of international relations. In order to build this kind of support, Greek diplomacy should develop a very systematic effort to reach international audiences, both through the traditional means of public diplomacy, as well as through modern technology.

For such an effort to be successful, its main axes should be in harmony with the national strategy and its priorities. The government officers, who will be called upon to develop it, should also know which audiences they are addressing. It is not an effort, I have to underline, that concerns only the personnel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; it also concerns other ministries and organizations, of both the public and private sectors; often very successful examples of public diplomacy are the result of actions of Non-Governmental Organizations.

Some people, especially in Greece, conflate public diplomacy with cultural diplomacy. Do you agree with this perception, or do you think there are other, equally important, aspects of public diplomacy that need to be promoted.

Cultural diplomacy is a part of public diplomacy and must be in sync with the priorities of a national strategy as it is defined by each government. In the case of Greece, cultural diplomacy can be an extremely effective public diplomacy tool, as it is a very suitable vehicle for projecting soft power. Especially for Greece, with its cultural heritage, cultural diplomacy can act as a means of maximizing acceptance by international audiences.

However, we should point out that cultural heritage should be promoted via contemporary means. Antiquity is a very powerful cultural product, but Greece should also project its modern face, its creators in all fields - literature, theater, music, cinema, etc. Cultural diplomacy is demanding and expensive, it requires resources – however if they correctly utilized, they can pay off many times over. In this area, the partnership between the public and private sectors is absolutely necessary.

What role can the Greek Diaspora, especially the ‘new Greek Diaspora’, i.e. Greeks that left the country after 2009, play in bolstering Greek culture and values?

The Greek Diaspora, given its extent, in terms of population size as well as of geographical diffusion, should emerge as a sort of super weapon for Greek public diplomacy. To achieve this, it should be valorized as a huge global network that will act autonomously but in sync with the goals of Greek foreign policy. The Greek authorities abroad should have a leading role in supplying organizations, networks and Diaspora communities with material suitable for dissemination. The mobilization of the Diaspora around specific goals and with specific tools will bear fruit if it is attuned to the aspirations of the Greek state. Technology today offers highly effective communication and interconnection capabilities that facilitate coordination and decentralization. We need to approach the younger generations and convince them to mobilize for Greece through their social and professional networks, which are not exclusively Greek.

Recently, steps have been taken towards the normalization of Greek-Turkish relations, as part of a coordinated effort to resolve the differences between the two countries. What might be the role of public diplomacy in this endeavor?

The current détente in Greek-Turkish relations facilitates communication between the civil societies of the two nations, which we should emphasize, has never ceased to exist. Regardless of our differences, the two peoples have much in common due to their history and geography. They are emotional, they are Mediterranean, and they live in a natural environment with many similarities. If closer contacts develop between groups of people with common interests, such as the academic community, journalists, entrepreneurs and other professional groups, the approach and exchange of views will be reflected at the political level as well. The civil society dimension of the political dialogue should be taken seriously into account.

What do you think is the international image of Greece today, that the economic crisis is now definitively behind us? What are our strengths and in which areas do you believe there is room for improvement?

Greece's image has been restored thanks to the country's return to normality, the good rate of growth and the huge influx of tourists. It is a country with an overall positive international image, and it is considered a reliable partner of the Western community as a member of NATO and the EU. Greece’s support for Ukraine has also helped its international standing by dispelling any doubt about its Western orientation. However, in order to have depth and duration, the international image of Greece must be cultivated systematically and over a long-term horizon. Nothing should be left to chance. It is necessary to organize Greek public diplomacy based on modern means, along with a coherent strategy and the utilization of the states’ human resources, so that what is now a raw material – our good international image – acquires depth and duration.

 * Interview to: Ioulia Livaditi (Greek News Agenda) and Ioulia Elmatzoglou (Grèce Hebdo)

** Translation from Greek to English: Ioulia Livaditi

The post Ino Afentouli on Greek Public Diplomacy appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Evanthis Hatzivassiliou is Professor of Postwar History at the Department of History of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens as well as secretary-general of the Hellenic Parliament Foundation for Parliamentarism and Democracy. His research interests include international history, the history of NATO during the Cold War, Greek foreign policy and political history and the Cyprus Question. Among his more publications are ‘The NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1969-1975: Transatlantic Relations, the Cold War and the Environment’ (2017), ‘NATO and Western Perceptions of the Soviet Bloc: Alliance Analysis and Reporting, 1951-1969’ (2014), and ‘Greece and the Cold War: Frontline State, 1952-1967’ (2006). Professor Hatzivassiliou is also Fellow of the Eleftherios Venizelos Foundation and a member of the Greek-Turkish forum, a one-and-a-half-track diplomacy initiative, founded in late 1997 with the aim to promote dialogue and communication between Greece and Turkey.

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne* Evanthis Hatzivassiliou spoke with our sister publication GrèceHebdo** on the importance of the Treaty for Greece and Turkey - as well as for the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, on the new international legitimacy established by the Treaty, on the mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, and finally, on Eleftherios Venizelos, the great political man who was the head of the Greek delegation during the Treaty negotiations.

It is generally believed that the Treaty of Lausanne only concerns Greece and Turkey, while in reality it is a treaty signed by eight countries. Could you briefly explain to us the importance of this treaty for both countries as well as for the wider geographical region?

The Treaty of Lausanne marks the solution of the Eastern Question, one of the most important, long-lasting and persistent international problems of modernity. The Eastern Question involved the possible dissolution and succession of the Ottoman Empire, and the control of the Straits; therefore, the whole region that was then called the “Near East”. The question raged at least since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, and touched upon the ambitions of the peoples of the region for political representation as well as upon the geopolitical priorities of the great powers and the long struggle between Britain and Russia for controlling the access to the Black Sea (therefore, also Russia’s access to warm seas).

In 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic; to the creation of the successor states in the region that we now call “the Middle East” (even if some of them were for a time mandates of Britain and France, such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the region of Palestine, Jordan); and to the definite settlement of the international borders in the south-eastern area of the Balkans between Greece and Turkey. Moreover, many other issues were settled, such as the Ottoman public debt, international navigation in the Straits, or issues regarding minorities; among the latter was the harsh compulsory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. Thus, as the solution of the Eastern Question, the Treaty of Lausanne regulates international relations in the wider area of the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. For this reason it also forms the basis of Greek foreign policy since then.

In your announcement at the recent ELIAMEP Conference for the 100 years of the Lausanne Treaty, you mentioned that the Treaty is a pillar of a new international legitimacy, as for the first time, small and sovereign states participated equally in it. Would you like to elaborate on this aspect, given that the issue of multilateralism remains relevant in international relations today?

The new international order that was created following the First World War was a profoundly liberal one. It involved the dissolution of the empires in East-Central Europe, and the definite rise of the nation-state as the main system of governance in the continent. At the same time, the creation of many new nation-states was also combined with an equally necessary move towards multilateralism, thanks to the setting up of the League of Nations, the brainchild of the US President, Woodrow Wilson. In the League all members of the international community participated, small states and great powers, on the basis of sovereign equality. This was a profound change compared to the past, when the existence and rights of small states were often ignored: during the nineteenth century, the European Concert had been a procedure of great powers only. Inotherwords, theinternationalsystemnowbecamemoreparticipatory. This was a decisive change in the international community. This new liberal legality was challenged cruelly by the forces of revisionism, especially Nazi Germany, but was confirmed with the outcome of the Second World War.

The Treaty of Lausanne, even with the admittedly dark aspect of the Greek-Turkish compulsory exchange of populations (a result of the crushing Turkish victory over Greece in 1922), brought to this part of the world the new international legitimacy, while it also settled international borders in the region, an element of decisive importance for the new order. As such, the Treaty of Lausanne is not only a crucial regional arrangement, but also the pillar of the wider international order in this part of the world.

In recent years, an opinion has been expressed – albeit very limited – that the Treaty of Lausanne ceases to be valid 100 years after its signature. Could you tell us what is the validity of the Treaty today and what is its importance for the future, especially of Greek-Turkish relations?

An international Treaty does not “expire” because of an anniversary. The Treaty of Lausanne continues to be in full force, and from the point of view of Public International Law it could not be otherwise. Apart from this, according to the prevalent view in International Law, the territorial settlement that such a Treaty establishes, would still remain in force even if the Treaty itself, as a legal instrument, were ever invalidated (which anyway is an extremely unlikely eventuality). Thus, the Treaty of Lausanne forms the basis of Greek-Turkish relations for the past 100 years and for the future. For this reason, the two countries need to show great care in respecting and implementing the Treaty: without this, chaos could ensue both in bilateral relations and in the wider region.

The mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey was a painful chapter in the Treaty of Lausanne, with significant socio-economic and political ramifications for Greece, while it was considered by many to violate human rights. How would you characterize the exchange of populations and in what way, in your opinion, did it determine the course and identity of modern Greece?

The Greek-Turkish compulsory exchange of populations was not only a controversial but a shameful act. This was because the compulsory character of the exchange fully violated human rights by depriving individuals of the right to choose. This was why it was even claimed, at that time, that the Exchange Convention was invalid according to International Law. This, on the other hand, was a rather theoretical view, since the exchange had already been done.

The compulsory exchange was imposed by the victorious Turkey on the defeated Greece of 1922: even since the autumn of 1922 (namely, before the signature of the Exchange Convention in late January 1923), the Greek populations had already been violently expelled from Western Asia Minor and from Eastern Thrace, while Turkey solemnly declared its determination to expel the remaining Greeks from Pontus, Cappadocia and other areas. In other words, even before the conclusion of the Exchange Convention, the larger part of the expulsion of the Greeks from Turkey was already a fait accompli, and could not be undone. The compulsory exchange was a fundamentally Turkish choice, which defeated Greece could not question. It was not the preference of Athens. The Greek perceptions, plans and aims regarding the populations had been expressed at the Treaty of Sèvres, which left populations in their homes, in the context of much more liberal arrangements.

At any rate, however inhuman and controversial from a legal or moral point of view, the reality that the Exchange Convention imposed shaped the contemporary Greek state and nation: the vast majority of the Greeks were now concentrated within the borders of the state; Greece became a “conservative” power, a supporter of the status quo. The exchange was a hugely traumatic experience. However, the Greek people and the state managed to overcome the trauma, and create a contemporary European state, capable of economic and social development.

Eleftherios Venizelos was appointed head of the Greek delegation to the negotiations in Lausanne, although he no longer participated in the country's governance. Do you think that the personality of the Greek politician, who was indeed the visionary of the Great Idea, contributed to upgrading of Greece's position during the negotiations of the Treaty of Lausanne? What was his contribution to maintaining peace in the region?

It is worth noting the tragic element in the case of Eleftherios Venizelos’ presence and roles during the Lausanne Conference: he was called to deal with the devastating consequences of a crushing defeat which could be attributed, to a large extent, to his own electoral defeat of November 1920. He had lost power, then the country had lost the war, and he now had to deal with the disaster. Yet he accepted this enormous responsibility.

There is little doubt that the international prestige of Venizelos was always greater than that of his small country – more so, of the vanquished Greece of 1922. This became very clear during the Lausanne Conference. Thus, even representing a defeated country, Venizelos managed to reach an honourable peace. Moreover, Venizelos’ sincere acceptance of the territorial status quo was decisive in Greece’s decision to abandon the Megali Idea and become a status quo power. This greatly aided the evolution of Greek policy, and shaped the international roles of the country for the past 100 years, as a pillar of stability and normalcy in the wider region, and as an ardent supporter of international legitimacy and of the liberal international order.

* The Treaty of Lausanne, the most enduring of the post-World War I peace accords, is a historic treaty signed on July 24, 1923, establishing national borders in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, with the aim of restoring peace in the region after the disastrous First World War. The treaty was signed by the Republic of Turkey, which had succeeded the defeated Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and by the Allied and Associated Powers (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Greece, Serbia and Romania) , on the other hand. One of the most radical elements of the Treaty of Lausanne, particularly from a humanitarian point of view, is the obligatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey.

** Interview granted to Ioulia Elmatzoglou | GreeceHebdo.gr

Read also from Greek News Agenda:

• 100 Years since the Treaty of Lausanne: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
• Davide Rodogno: Multilateralism plus prevention is a way of imagining a better future in humanitarian interventions
• Emilia Salvanou on the Greek-Turkish population exchange after 1922 and the making of Greek refugees' memory

I.L.

The post Rethinking Greece | Evanthis Hatzivassiliou on the Treaty of Lausanne and its enduring legacy appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

The 2nd Brussels Forum was jointly organized by think tanks diaNEOSis and ELIAMEP with the aim of facilitating the exchange of views between Greek officials working in European institutions and in the wider European public policy production system and of fostering the ongoing dialogue on the role of Europe in its neighborhood and in the international system, always in context of synthesizing EU goals with national interests. The event took place on 7 November 2022, with the participation of over forty officials and its theme was the major and multi-faceted challenges the EU faces now, from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its implications for energy and food security, to the geopolitical revisionism underway in the wider Mediterranean area. The discussions proceeded along two thematic axes: (a) Deepening the EU’s Common Foreign, Security and Defense Policy, and (b) A Secure and Competitive Europe in a Changing World*.

The starting point of the participants' deliberation and the first main conclusion was that the European Union finds itself in a "perfect storm" of a series of challenges on major security issues. The Russian invasion brought back to the fore the traditional form of warfare, with extended war fronts, razing of urban and non-urban areas, and massive loss of life, including civilians. The return of large-scale military operations is added to the modern hybrid forms of security threats – that range from cyberspace and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities to food and energy security.

Beyond the war in Ukraine, the element of confrontation dominates the wider international environment. The US pivot to Asia and the prospect of a prolonged confrontation with China has created new geopolitical realities, which the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not expected to dramatically change. In the short term, the US is indeed active again in Europe, reacting to Russian revisionism, but it is clear that the field of American economic and political focus is shifting to the Pacific Ocean. In any case, although the November 2022 mid-term elections did not confirm the ominous predictions for the Democrats, the next presidential election may not rule out a new political leadership that will put Euro-Atlantic relations on the back burner.

Within this international context, there is no room for complacency in the European Union. The positive evaluation of the immediate reaction to the Russian invasion, with the full support of the Ukrainian resistance by military and non-military means and the imposition of extensive sanctions on the Putin regime, does not mean that there are no internal contradictions and significant heterogeneity of preferences among the member states. Also, a fruitful self-criticism of the EU regarding its handling of Russia after the end of the Cold War and especially during the last decade should not be discouraged. The increase in the EU's energy dependence on Russia after the first round of conflicts in 2014 and the unilateral annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation demonstrate the EU's lack of response to what we now see as a prelude to this major conflict.

This observation points to the need for a new mix of European Ostpolitik, of engagement and containment in relation to Russia, which will feed into the EU's strategic planning for new security architecture in Europe. The commitment part refers to the necessity of avoiding a permanent and total rupture with Russia. Without overlooking President Putin's flagrant violation of international law and with an obvious need to further support the Ukrainian resistance, the EU must recognize that the day after the crisis will find Russia sharing borders with a number of its member states and therefore, a new symbiotic relationship must be formed, which will strengthen any remaining liberal forces inside Russia and allow for relative normality over time. At the same time, the EU must work on the issue of containing Russia and limiting its revisionism in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus.

The European reaction to the new circumstances resulting from global geopolitical developments can be summarized in four axes:

1. Firstly, there is an increased mobility in matters of military cooperation and armaments, both at national and European level. The Russian invasion acted as a catalyst to highlight significant military deficiencies in many member states and to initiate or accelerate extensive national armament processes, culminating in the German government's decision to make an unprecedented investment in this area. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the invasion of Ukraine prompted EU member states to take immediate action. This action included, in the first phase, the systematic and extensive supply of weapon systems to Ukraine as well as the training of soldiers to strengthen the Ukrainian resistance. The first phase was supported and utilized to a very large extent the new instrument of the European Peace Facility.

In a second phase, member states agreed at Versailles in March 2022 to substantially increase their defense spending in a collective and coordinated manner, investing in the acquisition of the necessary military assets and stimulating cooperative investment in joint armament actions and joint procurement of defense capabilities. These moves will advance and hopefully realize the EU's strategic autonomy, which is at the heart of the "Strategic Compass", that new EU security doctrine announced in the wake of the Russian invasion. Key tools in this direction are the creation of the European Rapid Deployment Capacity (EU RDC) and the strengthening of the European defense industry. This force, which will have a size of up to 5,000 soldiers, will be aimed at the EU's immediate reaction to security crises around the world, based on specific operational scenarios. Obviously, there is no question of a "Euro Army", as neither the size nor the existing operational dynamics of this force indicate any such a development.

It could be argued that the increase in defense spending and the declared intention to cooperate in matters of the defense industry are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a "Europe of Defence" (l’ Europe de la Défense), which as a concept remains quite nebulous. The launched projects within the framework of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO projects) and the European Defense Fund (European Defense Fund – EDF) cannot respond to security challenges of a range corresponding to the Russian invasion. The ongoing crisis broke the taboo subject of the EU's geopolitical role and character, bringing to the fore and necessitating the "normalization" of European foreign policy in parallel with the due importance to be attached to "hard power". Thus, it has opened a window of opportunity for substantive European military cooperation and defense integration. However, this window of opportunity will not remain open forever.

The Versailles declaration was rightly hailed as a potentially major milestone in the process of defense integration, but the implementation of what was agreed has a long-term horizon, especially since an entire high-tech, research-intensive and demanding industry is involved. The supporters of this project and those who see its long-term necessity consider that the intra-European defense deepening process is not yet "locked in effect", and therefore the possibility of its derailment cannot be ruled out. In this case, the high expectations that have been cultivated will be disproved once again, confirming the difficulty of a leap into an area that pertains to the hard core of state sovereignty.

 2. The second - very relevant to the first - axis of actions focuses on EU-NATO relations and on strengthening their complementarity rather than competition. Realistically assessing its current capabilities, the EU has a long way to go to implement a strategy of autonomy; therefore, strengthening the cooperation with NATO is a necessary condition for a stable security system in Europe. This cooperation has advanced quite a bit despite the upheavals of the Trump era. However, this cooperation has not achieved the necessary political depth and is limited to direct interactions between officials of the two parties (staff to staff) without the involvement of the political bodies of the two organizations. Therefore, cooperation has certain limits.

In any case, an enhanced cooperation is mutually beneficial, as the EU is perhaps better suited than NATO to manage certain aspects of security, due to deep expertise in, for example, counter-terrorism policy or hybrid threats. Also, geographical diversification makes the need for a militarily stronger Europe imperative, taking into account its existing interest in the Sahel region and wider Sub-Saharan Africa, areas that are not of NATO interest. So, then, this dimension of reciprocity through the specialization and complementarity of each organization’s actions must at the forefront if case US isolationism returns to the transatlantic agenda in the coming years. To this end, the European efforts for armament and defense cooperation at the national level but especially at the EU level should evolve with the aim of avoiding tensions and misunderstandings about their true intentions. This is possible by explicitly and permanently affirming NATO's primary role in the European security system, which is already systematically done in all EU official documents and policy texts.

3. The third axis of activity in the EU is the renewed dynamism but also a growing reflection on the enlargement process. Is a new round of enlargement it in the EU's interest and which countries will be invited to join it? The Ukrainian government's application for EU membership reminded us of the great value of the enlargement policy as a driver of internal transformation in the candidate countries and a factor of regional stabilization. These two invaluable contributions, of the structural transformation and stabilization, which were exploited to the maximum extent in the great enlargement of 2004 (and 2007) with the new members from Central and Eastern Europe, were shelved in the EU's political arsenal in case of the Western Balkans. The prospect of the enlargement of the region has turned into a protracted process with no visible completion, bringing about the gradual disillusionment of both governments and citizens in the candidate countries. The Russian invasion, combined with new rounds of tensions between Serbia and Kosovo and the risk tensions could spill to other parts of the Western Balkans is bringing the region back into the spotlight.

In this context, the prospect of enlargement is again presented as a panacea to the existing problems, accompanied, however, by a strong counterargument and a broad concern about EU´s functional limits and the ability to smoothly absorb new members. The evolution of the Ukrainian crisis will affect the dynamics of enlargement and the final choice between the above "consolidation of security - cohesion" dilemma, as it will affect the corresponding mobility in the field of defense and security, as discussed above. A settlement of the crisis will alter the urgent nature of the accession perspective of the Western Balkan countries. This fact has been realized by the states of the Western Balkans who are strongly mobilizing, adopting and promoting a more realistic but suboptimal perspective of "staged accession".

The debate on enlargement inevitably brings to the fore the accession perspective of Turkey, which at the present stage is essentially non-existent. In the last two relevant Commission texts, the 2021 and 2022 progress reports, the existing impasse is clearly highlighted. However, it is clear that the complete rupture of relations is not beneficial neither for Europe nor for Greece. Even recognizing that the current regime of relations is not functional and in fact these relations are frozen, it is appropriate not to completely discredit the prospect of closer cooperation. In other words, the EU must first study and formulate an alternative proposal for the framework of cooperation with Turkey, in the form of a revised Customs Union that could form the basis of the next day of EU-Turkey relations.

4. The fourth axis concerns the activity of the EU in the rest of the world and especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Even this particular geographical neologism of Indo-Pacific was not widely used by the EU until three years ago, which shows the impossibility of an earlier conceptual conception of the region in a unitary way. Reacting, however, to the growing competition and rivalry of the US with China in the wider region, the EU has formulated - with great speed for its standards - a fairly coherent policy. Key features of this policy are equality and partnership in the relations that the EU builds with the countries of the region, in contrast to previous approaches.

What is encouraging about the prospect of European activity in the Indo-Pacific region is that Europe still has footholds in this wider geographical area. EU’s appeal rests on its function as a guiding model on a range of issues. Of particular importance are issues of ocean governance on the basis of international law, by reason of the importance the EU attaches to the implementation of current international treaties such as United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The EU is also recognized as a pioneer in less obvious subject areas, such as the issue of personal data security. In other words, the EU has significant "soft power" in the region that it can and should use.

In conclusion, these four axes summarize the European response to the ongoing geopolitical realignment. This is a highly dynamic process, possibly marking the "end of innocence" for the EU in terms of its refusal or inability to invest in power. The EU can no longer afford to ignore geopolitical and geoeconomic developments and the growing power asymmetry that has emerged in its relations with the new poles of the international system. The problem is that member states continue to adopt an ethnocentric approach to these challenges, which raises major concerns about whether the EU can finally proceed with a substantial political transformation in order to strengthen or even maintain its position in the new global security architecture.

The pursuit of unity, often on the basis of the lowest common denominator, undermines the EU's degree of ambition, beyond any difficulties and delays that the search for consensus may bring. This "unity-ambition gap" governs all discussions on a reform of the European modus operandi that would allow EU´s more active role within the new geopolitical environment. The debate on a reform of the treaty of Lisbon lacks political practicality and feasibility. As has been repeatedly confirmed, any attempt to reform the Treaties is an extremely long-term, divisive and polarizing process with unpredictable results. Therefore, it does not qualify as a realistic alternative. After all, the existing EU legal framework contains de facto and de jure options for substantial reform, such as, for example, the "passerelle clause".

The two key issues that can help address this "unity-ambition" gap are the issue of flexibility in decision-making and the perspective of differentiated integration. Something like this is already happening with the Eurozone, the Schengen Zone and the PESCO projects. To the extent that such schemes are open to participation in all EU member states and the membership criteria are well-defined and transparent, they allow for the promotion of a unitary vision even in a fragmented, politically and institutionally, version. Obviously, this method of integration is not a panacea for divergent views among EU members, but at least it offers a political alternative for groups "willing and able" to advance deeper and faster. The success of such schemes will enhance their appeal, and in the end, they can form the hard core of a substantial federalization of the EU.

* The article is a transated and summarized version of the report  on 2nd Brussels Forum on the Dianeos website. Tranlsation and summary: Ioulia Livaditi 

The post 2nd Brussels Forum: Europe in a Changing Geopolitical Environment appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Theodore A. Couloumbis, world renowned International Relations expert, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the University of Athens and a firm believer of Greek-Turkish dialogue, passed away last week at age 87. He was among the founders of Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), one of the first and biggest Greek think tanks -established in 1988- and has served as the foundation's President (1993–95) and Director General (1998–2006).

As is mentioned in this obituary at ELIAMEP, "his contribution to ELIAMEP and to the Greek international studies community is immeasurable. He was a teacher, friend and mentor to hundreds of his university students and colleagues. A model academic teacher and a man of profound integrity, genuine courtesy and inexhaustible kindness, he also had an inexhaustible and sparkling sense of humour."

Theodore Couloumbis was born in Thessaloniki in June 1935. His father was an artillery officer, his mother a kindergarten teacher. He lost his father in 1941, when he was killed aged just 33 in the Battle of Crete. He grew up with his mother and brother and attended Athens College on a scholarship. He emigrated to the United States to study in 1952; he would live, study and work there for more than 30 years. He earned a BA in Political Science (1956) and an MA in International Relations (1958), both from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in International Relations from the American University (1963). In the years 1965-83, Couloumbis was professor of International Relations at the American University’s School of International Service in Washington DC where he received several awards for outstanding teaching.

As he writes in his book “71…74: An academic’s notes“, the desire to return to Greece was always there in his mind and  in his heart especially, but the military coup of 1967 made this impossible, as he could not work under such suffocating conditions and constant censorship. So he stayed in America and fought the dictatorship from there. Testifying to Congress in July, August and September 1971, he strove to get “a simple but important message” across: “Stop supporting the Colonels! Greece is a country that can offer a genuinely democratic as well as non-communist alternative to the Colonels’ obscurantist and despotic regime”.

He eventually returned to Greece and from 1983 to 1989 he was professor of International Relations at the School of Law of the University of Thessaloniki, moving to the University of Athens early in 1990. In 1995-1996 he was a Senior Fellow with the United States Institute of Peace and in 2006-2007 a Policy Scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He served as President of ELIAMEP in Athens (1993-1995), President of the Institute for Balkan Studies in Thessaloniki (1988-1990) and President of the Hellenic Society for International Law and International Relations (1985-1987). Couloumbis also attended meetings, as an expert, at the Greek Foreign Ministry’s Foreign Policy National Council, from its founding in 2003 to 2006. He was also a member of the Greek Turkish Forum, is a one-and-a-half-track diplomacy initiative, founded in late 1997 with the aim to promote dialogue and communication between Greece and Turkey.

Coloumbis’ work focused on conflict resolution in the post-Cold War international setting and on aspects of Greek foreign policy. He is the co-author (with James H. Wolfe) of the well-known text book, International Relations: Power and Justice, Prentice Hall, 4th ed. 1990, author of US, Greece and Turkey: The Troubled Triangle (Praeger,1983) and co-editor of the new Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (Frank Cass and ELIAMEP). His more recent publications include the Greek Junta Phenomenon (Pella, 2004) and a co-edited volume, Greece in the 20th Century (Frank Cass, 2005). In addition to his scholarly output, he was a regular columnist and frequent contributor to newspaper “Kathimerini”.

His primary research interests included dispute resolution in the international environment, and he worked to bring about a rapprochement between Greece and Turkey based on mutual understanding within the framework provided by international law. He fought all his life for the settlement of international crises. He was a great teacher who filled lecture theatres with his infectious passion. A profoundly modest man, he did not accept positions of power when they were offered to him, always preferring to contribute quietly.

*With information from: Kathimerini, ELIAMEP

I.L.

The post A tribute to Theodore Couloumbis, world renowned International Relations expert appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Greece´s Capodistrias Museum– Center of Capodistrian Studies is among the 60 nominees for the European Museum of the Year Award (EMYA) 2022, the ceremony of which will take place in Tartu, Estonia, from May 4-7, 2022. A significant distinction presented by the European Museum Forum under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the European Museum of the Year Award (EMYA) was founded in 1977 with the aim to stimulate international interchange of ideas and pinpoint new approaches to the protection and interpretation of heritage, as well as new ways in which museums operate. The Award is given annually to a museum that has excelled in the European museum scene for attracting and welcoming its visitors by using high standards and innovative approaches.

It is worth mentioning that the Capodistrias Museum- Center of Capodistrian Studies is the only Greek foundation shortlisted for the 2022 Award, which is a remarkable honor for the museum itself as is also for Greece, as recently announced by the Ministry of Culture.

Founded in 1981 on the island of Corfu, the museum is dedicated exclusively to the life and work of the Greek state´s first governor and top European diplomat, Ioannis Capodistrias, aiming thus to take visitors on a journey through the history not only of Corfu and modern Greece but also of Europe. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikos Dendias, stressed on the occasion of the signing of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Museum:

“[…] The Capodistrias Museum is the only cultural foundation dedicated to his life, work and legacy. A legacy that goes beyond the country´s borders […]”.

More specifically, the museum is housed in Kapodistrias' summer residence - in the village of Evropouli - Koukouritsa area- which was donated, in 1979, to three historically significant Corfiot cultural organizations (the Corfu Reading Society, the Philharmonic Society of Corfu, and the Society for Corfiot studies) by one of Capodistrias´ descendants, Maria Desylla-Capodistria – former Mayor of Corfu (1956–1959) and the first female mayor in Greece.

Among others, the Museum includes family portraits and photos, Capodistrias’ family tree, and seals, religious artifacts, furniture, official documents, books from Capodistrias’ personal library, and honorary medals. It is worth noting that there are no texts on the walls in the halls of the museum; as Daria Koskorou, director and curator of the museum explained in a recent interview: “We didn’t want to lose that home feeling, hence all the enlightening and educational information is available free of charge on your mobile phone through a QR code. Additionally, the museum boasts a free audio tour service available to all visitors via a web application for smartphones and on a dedicated device. The audio guide to the permanent exhibition is available in four languages (English, Russian, French, and Greek)”.

Of particular interest to researchers and teachers is the Ioannis Capodistrias Digital Archive, an ambitious project that was completed in 2016 with the aim to offer an extensive, wide-ranging collection of material regarding Capodistrias’ legacy.

The Museum also collaborates with Greek and foreign museums and organizations in a joint effort to create networks of inspiration and cultural exchange. Within this context,  special mention should be made to the exhibition “Geneva and Greece – A Friendship serving Independence” running through February 13, 2022, at the Museum of Art and History in Geneva, in collaboration with the Hardt Foundation for the Study of Classical Antiquity. The exhibition highlights the relationship between Ioannis Capodistrias and two Genevans - Charles Pictet de Rochemont and Jean Gabriel Eynard – who all played a key role in Geneva joining the Swiss Confederation, and Greece becoming an independent state.

More info & photos:

Visit the Capodistrias’ Museum official website and social media

See also on GNA:

The post Greece’s Capodistrias Museum shortlisted for the European Museum of the Year Award 2022 appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

In an international environment, where cities focus their efforts on becoming key actors, city diplomacy is increasingly becoming more relevant. New technologies foster the creation of active city networks in order to address common challenges and achieve mutual goals. Global challenges, such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic can be effectively tackled at local level as well, and the debate on the role of cities in a multilateral environment is becoming central.

In this context, the 2nd Public Diplomacy Talks (2021) that took place on Wednesday, June 16th, focused on “City Diplomacy: Creating Global Networks” and was organized by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for Greeks Abroad, Konstantinos Vlasis, and the Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy, John Chrysoulakis. The “Public Diplomacy Talks (PD Talks)” constitute an annual Forum inaugurated in 2020 by the General Secretariat for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in order to provide a platform for a vibrant and fruitful exchange of views and best practices on Public Diplomacy.

Opening remarks by the organizers

“Public Diplomacy constitutes the third pillar of Greece’s foreign policy and plays a key role in our diplomatic imprint. During the last two years, the Greek Government has managed to tackle effectively a series of challenges, with Covid-19 being the most recent. Due to the pandemic, it has become evident that, in an interconnected world, collaboration and partnerships are necessary in order to overcome global challenges”, said Konstantinos Vlasis, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for Greeks Abroad, greeting the event and stressing its timeliness.

“The 19th century was the century of empires, the 20th century the century of nation-states, and the 21st century will be that of cities”, John Chrysoulakis, Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad and Public Diplomacy, underlined in his greeting, quoting Wellington Webb, former Mayor of Denver.  

First part

In the first part of the discussion, Dr Lorenzo Kihlgren Grandi, co-founder and chair of Urban Flag and a lecturer in City Diplomacy at Sciences Po Paris, École Polytechnique, and Columbia University, Ms Sohaela Amiri, researcher at the University of Southern California, and Dr Antonios Karvounis, Head of the Interministerial Committee for the International Partnerships of Local Government, focused on the new globalized role of the cities with examples from Greece and abroad. The discussion was moderated by Ms Nektaria Stamouli, foreign affairs reporter at Athens News Agency and regional correspondent for Politico who posed questions to the speakers regarding the function and best practices of City Diplomacy, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the relationship between local authorities and central government.

Dr. Lorenzo Kihlgren Grandi

It is true that we live in the century of cities, Dr Lorenzo Kihlgren Grandi noted in his introductory remarks, because cities are demonstrating a powerful ability to act internationally and establish a series of relationships with other international actors.

Taking Paris and Rome as a study case, he went on to underline that three basic elements determine the success of city diplomacy:

1. When mayors identify city diplomacy as a priority
2. Human resources: the need for experienced personnel that combine diplomatic skills with thorough knowledge of the cities and their legal limitations
3. Shared knowledge of what public diplomacy does; clear communication that encourages citizens to participate

Dr Grandi commented that, historically, a system that reports the impact of city diplomacy has been lacking and many programmes were intricately connected with the mayor. City networks such as the C40 or intercultural cities have added a series of indicators that assess the progress made by the cities in the global goal that these networks have been pursuing. The same goes for international projects. Especially when these projects are financed with EU money, there is a need to assess their impact.

Referring to the pandemic, Dr Grandi noted that it was an example of an urban crisis with 90% of Covid cases registered in cities with many consequences. The coronavirus crisis suspended many city diplomacy initiatives, but at the same time, many cities reacted in a very inspiring way. They used technology to connect with each other. Cities that were first hit shared their experience with others and helped them adapt. There were also examples of concrete solidarity, e.g. the money donation the city of Frankfurt made to the city of Milan that was heavily hit by Covid.

Developmental aid, which is also a big component of city diplomacy, was offered by cities such as Paris or Barcelona in the middle of the pandemic when they decided to financially support cities in developing countries that had fewer means to respond to the crisis either in terms of communication or protective materials. In these cases, the impact of city diplomacy became very concrete, Dr Grandi noted.

The collaboration between local authorities with the central government is always a tricky issue. Opposing government policies give a Mayor national or even international visibility. A famous example was the Coalition of Mayors fighting climate change in the USA while the Trump Government was retiring from various international agreements. Huge visibility also comes with certain types of endorsement, as was the case with the French presidential endorsement of the Mayors coalition, but such incidents are extraordinary. City diplomacy is not to be intended as an opposition; it is best exercised at a multi-level approach, in coordination with different levels of government, national and regional and citizens. Strong alignment becomes increasingly more important in order to face challenges such as migration and climate change, concluded Dr Grandi.

Sohaela Amiri

Amiri identified the five key functions of City Diplomacy in the USA:

2- Diplomatic Representation and Protocol 

3- International Exchanges, Cultural Ties, and Aid 

4- Civic Engagement and Education

5- Policy Collaboration, Advocacy, and Action

Amiri added that the most tangible outputs of city diplomacy are trade and any kind of materials and services that are exchanged. Another is policy change (f.e. e.g. regarding climate change, migration etc). Covid-19 and the aid offered by twinned towns was a very clear example of city diplomacy impact that actually saved lives.

Covid-19 caused many offices that worked on city diplomacy to close or reduce personnel, posing issues of sustainability for city diplomacy practice. Many city diplomacy offices in the USA house diplomatic missions or consular services. The help of the city diplomacy officers in maintaining communication with Consulates of other countries and the Diaspora during the pandemic was of crucial importance, Amiri stressed.

Dr. Antonios Karvounis

Focusing on the Greek case, Dr Karvounis referred to the General Principles of International Partnerships of Local Government as the criteria for successful partnerships.

Dr Karvounis, who is Head of the Interministerial Committee for the International Partnerships of Local Government in the Ministry of the Interior, underlined that trust, coordination and communication between municipalities and central Government is always necessary for efficient city diplomacy in Greece.

He added that the most popular forms of City Diplomacy are the participation in European Programmes and of course town twinnings, which date since the end of WWII in Greece. Cyprus and Italy are the cities with most town twinnings, while the main policy domain for a town twinning is culture.

Dr Karvounis also referred to best practices, mentioning Shanghai sending 20.000 masks to its twinned Municipality of Piraeus during the pandemic. Another best practices instance was the City network “Q-Cities” set up in Amarousion in 2008, which promoted quality and innovations in local government; it consisted of 12 cities and has been very successful. He concluded that best practices should engage locals and take the local opinion into account.

Dr Karvounis continued with the impact indicators of City Diplomacy which are useful in measuring the success of a policy process: administrative organisation, cognitive modernisation (good practices exchanges and capacity building), financial viability and political lobbying (city branding).

According to Dr Karvounis, the Covid-19 pandemic showed the limits of cities’ capabilities to coordinate procurement among themselves. In most cases, the coronavirus crisis highlighted globally the city dependency on the State. In Greece, many cities exhibited solidarity with many sister cities abroad, the pandemic however still made the limits of city diplomacy evident, as well as the need of Municipalities to reorganise themselves, he concluded.

Second part

During a discussion between Greek and foreign Mayors about cooperation and expectations as regards City Diplomacy, the Mayor of Athens, Kostas Bakoyannis, and the Mayor of Porto, Rui Moreira, underlined at first what both cities have in common, mentioning the UNESCO Heritage Sites and the fact that both Athens and Porto came out stronger from a severe financial crisis. Both Mayors agreed that city diplomacy was affected by the pandemic, noting however that their cities did well to the surprise of many, proving that Southern Europe can handle the uncertainty in a better way showing more flexibility.

Regarding the image of their cities, Bakoyannis and Moreira agreed that both Athens and Porto showed the rest of the world that they are not only cities with gastronomy, sun and tourism, but they are also cities that can deliver professional services guaranteeing the safety, the security and the public health of citizens and visitors. As the Mayors said, “they are cities that people can live, work and invest”.

When it comes to the relationship between the city and national diplomacy, Bakoyannis and Moreira underlined that they have no antagonistic relationship with their national governments and that they do not try to replace them. In this context, city diplomacy is about building links and alliances with other cities and in many cases cities share a common agenda aiming to become inclusive, healthy, fair, sustainable & resilient. What is more, local authorities are called to find solutions to real problems and, as Mayor Bakoyannis explained, cities are working bottom-up, encouraging transparency and dialogue. That is why Athens is a vibrant and dynamic city, as he said. Mayor Moreira added that Porto concentrates on civic authority like in Ancient Athens, repeating that cities are closer to the people.

Referring to immigration issues and to newcomers, Mayor Moreira said that cities are more attractive, adding that the increased demand creates pressure. What is important with city diplomacy, Mayor Moreira explained, is that it helps cities to share their concerns for integration policies and for avoiding the pressure from extreme voices, promoting social awareness and social cohesion.

When asked by the moderator Nektaria Stamouli about their future plans, Mayor Moreira explained that he will continue to work with OECD in the Organization’s “Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth Initiative”, while he will encourage the creation of contacts and synergies between universities of Porto and other universities, as foreign students comprise the biggest part of Porto’s foreign visitors. Mayor Bakoyannis said that he will continue to encourage educational and cultural exchanges between Porto and Athens, while he aims to work more on Athens branding, concluding that all these actions should be translated into real changes to citizen’s everyday life.

Moses Elisaf, Mayor of Ioannina, Greece, and Israel Gal, Mayor of Kiryat Ono, Israel, during their discussion referred to the common characteristics their cities share, such as the potential for growth and development, but most importantly, what connects the two cities is the Jewish community of Ioannina. As Mayor Elisaf explained, Ioannina was and still is the centre of the Romaniotes -the Greek-speaking Jewish community that’s the oldest Jewish community in Europe and one of the oldest Jewish communities in existence- adding that for this reason the city is visited by many Jews from Israel. He also underlined that many Jews of Romaniote origin from Ioannina live in Israel and particularly in Kiryat Ono. Mayor Gal also revealed that cooperation between the two cities was vividly proposed by citizens of Kiryat Ono that visited Ioannina and fell in love with the city.

Mayor Elisaf also referred to the rich multicultural background of Ioannina, emphasizing the remarkable variety of the religious monuments of the city from the Byzantine churches, to Ottoman mosques and Jewish synagogues. As Elisaf said, the citizens of Ioannina and Kiryat Ono responded positively to the cooperation between their cities.

Asked by the moderator Nektaria Stamouli about the role of city diplomacy regarding anti-Semitism, Mayor Gal stressed that cooperation and networking between cities can certainly help to put an end to antagonism among peoples and combating anti-Semitism. Mayor Elisaf underlined the decisive role of city diplomacy in tackling prejudices, noting that anti-Semitism is not widely observed in Greece or Ioannina, adding that city diplomacy is a strong mode of communication between nations that is even able to overcome problems created by national policies.

Both Mayors also emphasized the importance of local authorities to the daily lives of citizens as they are in direct contact with them, stressing that local societies can play a decisive role in tackling global challenges such as climate change, pandemic consequences and migration.

Watch the full video of PDTalks 2021 event here:

F. K. – I.E.

The post Highlights from PD Talks 2021: “City Diplomacy: Creating Global Networks” appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

An exhibition about the diplomatic history of Greece following the declaration of its independence, is organized by the Diplomatic and Historical Archives of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as part of the celebration for the 200 years since the beginning of the Greek Revolution. The exhibition which, at the moment, goes virtual reveals important official documents concerning the recognition of the Greek State by the existing States of the time highlighting the efforts of the newly established state to gain its position in the international community. As it is described by the curator of the exhibition and director of the Diplomatic and Historical Archives Expert Counsellor Georgios Polydorakis, “military victories were not enough for independence. Recognition by the other States and establishment of diplomatic and consular relations with them, were prerequisites for Greece to become truly independent”.

Copy of the Treaty of London (July 6, 1827) between the three Great Powers (United Kingdom, France, Russia) which provided for the autonomy of Greece with the obligation to pay a tax to the Sultan

Through historical documents the exhibition unveils the establishment of diplomatic and consular relations as well as the establishment of a consular network presenting some interesting details of the first steps of the Greek state, after the Greek struggle for Independence that begun in 1821.

Haiti, the first country that recognized the Greek Revolution

Although the Great powers were the first to recognize Greece’s status of autonomy by signing the Treaty of London in July 1827, the small Caribbean state of Haiti was the first independent state that recognized the Greek Revolution in 1822. President of Haiti Jean-Pierre Boyer responding to a letter dated 20 August 1821 from the directorate of the Greek Committee of Paris and signed by Korais, Polychroniades, Bogoridis and Klonaris, expressed the enthusiasm of the Haitian people for the outbreak of the Revolution. Although he declared the inability of his poor state to help the struggle financially, President Boyer wished victories similar to those in the battles of Marathon and Salamis. This letter was published in the fourth volume of Ioannis Philemon’s book “Historical Essay on the Greek Revolution” (1861).

Portrait of President of Haiti Jean-Pierre Boyer - Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem was next in recognizing the Greek Revolution, while appointing a representative to the Provisional Administration of Greece as early as 1823.

The first official diplomatic relations with independent states begun after the establishment of the Greek independent state in 1830 and the equivalent of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is worth noting though that the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs was first created by the first Greek Constitution, the Constitution of Epidaurus, and the establishment of the Provisional Administration of Greece in early 1822. Phanariot Theodoros Negris who served as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs invited consular and diplomatic representatives of foreign Governments located in the liberated Greek territories to be accredited to the Greek Government in 1822, almost a year after the beginning of the Greek War of Independence.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of Greece, Theodoros Negris, invites in May 1822 consular and diplomatic representatives of foreign governments to be accredited to the Greek Government

The course of Greece’s recognition – from the autonomy to the independency

The Great powers were the first to recognize Greece’s status of autonomy by signing the Treaty of London in July 1827. The de facto recognition of the government of Kapodistrias as the legitimate government of the autonomous Greek State takes place with the arrival to Poros of the three Ambassadors of the Great Powers in Constantinople in September 1828 and, even more so, with the accreditation of Ministers Resident immediately after that.

Concerning particularly the UK, Greek revolutionaries had begun their contacts with the United Kingdom very early during the Revolution. Many British philhellenes arrived in Greece to voluntarily help in the Struggle for Independence, some of whom had previously served as British Army officers. Furthermore, in February 1824 the Greek Provisional Administration agreed on a loan of nominal amount of £800,000 (of which 59% was disbursed) with a British bank, which could be considered as de facto recognition of the Greek Government. A more explicit recognition was, of course, the signing by the United Kingdom of the Treaty of London in July 1827. The recognition was completed with the accreditation of the first Resident in the autumn of 1828.

The signing of the London Protocol (February 3, 1830), the main Protocol of Independence of the Greek state – Source: Greece2021

The first formal international act recognizing Greece as an entirely independent state is the London Protocol signed on February 3, 1830 and delivered to the Sublime Porte by the Ambassadors of the Great Powers on April 8, 1830. In another Protocol of the same day, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg was nominated Prince-Sovereign of Greece.

The exhibition presents documents concerning the diplomatic relations of the Greek state for a period running approximately until 1840 while the States are mentioned by the name they had at the time. Among them we distinguish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Russia, France, Belgium and the US but also the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Sardinia, the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway, the States of the German Confederation, Persia et al. The exhibition presents also documents concerning relations with non-Independent States and regions of that era such as the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Principality of Serbia, the Principality of Samos or the United States of the Ionian Islands.

Nomination of the first Consul General of the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway in Greece in 1831 (left) - Decree nominating the first Ambassador of Greece in St. Petersburg, General Richard Church in 1833 (center) - Nomination decree of the first Consul of Greece in Tabriz in Persia, Pantias A. Rally, in 1837 (right)

All documents originate from the Diplomatic and Historical Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, unless otherwise stated, and are digitized and posted on the digital platform of the Service of Diplomatic and Historical Archives arxeio.mfa.gr, on which the entire archival collection of the Central Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until 1924 is available in a digitized format.

Visit the exhibition of the Service of Diplomatic and Historical Archives of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs “Liberated Greece” here: https://200years.mfa.gr/en/

Watch the message of Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikos Dendias presenting the virtual exhibition by the Service of Diplomatic and Historical Archives of the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Read also via GNA

3 February 1830: Greece becomes a state
American and British Philhellenes
Ioannis Kapodistrias, Modern Greece’s first head of state
Greek Independence Day: 25 March, 1821 | The Making of a Modern European State
“Greece 2021” | The celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the country’s Independence War

 I.E. 

The post “Greece Liberated” | Revealing the diplomatic history of Greece after 1821 through the MFA’s Diplomatic and Historical Archives appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

A few months ago, the Embassy of Greece in Bosnia and Herzegovina launched an ambitious initiative to promote Greek language and culture: they provide Greek fiction, history and educational books to the libraries of educational institutions, universities and secondary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The initiative has been widely embraced and has already taken root.

The first "Greek corner" opened a few months ago in Doboj (Republika Srpska), in the Faculty of economics and management. Along with books, the corner was supplied with electronic equipment and educational material. Moreover, with the assistance of the Hellenic Foundation of Culture, those who are interested have the opportunity to attend online Greek language courses.

In an interview with the Athens News Agency, the Ambassador of Greece to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Dimitrios Papandreou, who initiated the project, stated that the initiative has already taken on "a nationwide momentum". There are three donation centres, in Athens, Thessaloniki and Patras. A truck collects the books and other educational materials and transports them to Sarajevo.

The first books arrived in Sarajevo in November 2020 with the assistance of the Patras-based Peloponnisos newspaper and have already been distributed to libraries. The second shipment, carrying some 2500-3000 books that will be added to new libraries, is expected to arrive within April 2021.

The project is implemented without any cost for the institutions hosting the "Greek corners" and the Embassy provides them with the books and other materials. After the current restrictions against the spread of COVID-19 are lifted, the Embassy plans to hold lectures on Greek history and language.

As Ambassador Papandreou pointed out, the response by all institutions was impressive and there are plans for the opening of more "Greek corners" throughout the country. A similar spot is expected to open very soon in a Franciscan college in Visoko (Muslim-Croat Federation), where ancient Greek is taught.

M.V.

The post Greek corners in Bosnia and Herzegovina: An initiative of the Greek Ambassador that was met with enthusiasm appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

In the year 2021, Greece celebrates the Bicentenary of the Greek War of Independence, the Greek revolution against Ottoman rule, which led to the establishment of the Modern Greek state. The official celebration of the Greek Revolution of 1821 takes place on 25 March (one of the two national holidays of Greece), coinciding with the Feast of the Annunciation, since that was the day when the War of Independence was declared, according to oral tradition.

Ahead of the 25 March 2021 celebrations, many Foreign Embassies and institutions in Greece have announced their programmes and initiatives to commemorate the Greek Revolution bicentenary.

The United States Embassy in Athens has launched a year-long campaign, under the title "USA & Greece: Celebrating 200 Years of Friendship"highlighting the historic relationship between the two countries as well as their present and future partnership, illustrating the role of American Philhellenes in the Greek Revolution, but also putting emphasis on the contemporary strategic partnership between the two countries in the fields of education, research and digital technologies.

Throughout 2021, the US embassy will fund several programmes, partnering with Greek and American civil society, educational, and arts institutions. The planned events include:

The special exhibition "The American Philhellenism" at the newly established Museum of Philhellenism in Athens, featuring unique artefacts and historical documents capturing the birth and evolution of Philhellenism, US support for the Greek Revolution, and the impact of Greek culture on the values, institutions, artistic and architectural expressions in the US.

The exhibition "The Free and the Brave: American Philhellenes and the Glorious Struggle of the Greeks (1776-1866) " at the Gennadius Library, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, exploring the movement of Philhellenism that flourished in the U.S. in the 19th Century, influenced by Greek classical thought and democratic ideals.

An online report and seminar at the Delphi Economic Forum titled "Greek Fire" on the lasting impact that the Greek Revolution has had on American culture and politics, and more.

The programme also includes scholarships towards the establishment of an American Studies curriculum at a Greek university.

In a video message posted on the occasion, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt stated that "the struggle for independence motivated early Americans to rally behind the Greek cause of democracy and self-determination.  As the inheritors of ancient Athenian traditions, American Philhellenes believed they had a civic duty to help Greece reclaim its birthright of democracy".

The British Embassy in Athens has also announced its programme in celebration of the bicentenary of the Greek Revolution marking Britain's contribution to the Greek Struggle.

British Ambassador Kate Smith, who presented the programme, explained that the activities planned aim to commemorate the shared history between the people of Greece and the UK, but also look to the future.

"Of course it was Greece’s revolution, and a triumph for the Greek people and its leaders. But we Brits too want to commemorate the thrilling events of 200 years ago, and the supporting role that Britain played – through the inspirational contribution of Byron and the London Greek Committee, the diplomatic dexterity of Lord Canning, the Royal Navy’s role in the struggle at sea that culminated in Navarino", stated Ambassador Smith.

The British Embassy will host throughout the year a new series of lectures – titled "The 2021 Lectures" – Britain, Britons and the Greek Revolution" via an online partnership with the newspaper To Vima. The talks and texts will be freely accessible to all.

Portrait of Lord Byron in Albanian Dress (detail), Thomas Phillips, 1813, Government Art Collection (GAC)

It was also announced that the British Navy’s flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth will pass through Greek waters as a show of solidarity with Greek armed forces and the two-century alliance between the two countries. Additionally, to honour the memory of Lord Byron, arguably the world’s most famous Philhellene, Great Britain lends the poet’s portrait by Thomas Phillips to the Benaki Museum for their "1821 Before and After" exhibition at the Pireos annex.

Ambassador Smith explained that youth is at the heart of the programme "alongside the guiding spirit of the Philhellenes: volunteerism" adding that the "soldiers, sailors, writers, administrators, doctors and journalists, adventurers of all types, who came to Greece in the 1820s and 1830s including from Britain were extraordinary individuals for many reasons. But especially because they were all volunteers".

Hence, hoping to channel that spirit of activism and personal responsibility into direct action to tackle today’s shared challenges, the Embassy will work to "develop capacity and capability in today’s UK and Greek not-for-profit and voluntary sectors, training future leaders, and bringing young Greeks and Britons together on Greek soil, to work for a more inclusive and sustainable future".

The German Embassy in Athens has launched an initiative on its social media in celebration of the bicentenary of the 1821 Greek War of Independence by highlighting the history of 21 important figures of German philhellenism.

According to the Embassy’s Press Release, not many Greeks are aware that, of the approximately 1,200 Philhellenes who arrived in Greece from the European North and West after 1821 to support the Greek Revolution, Germans constituted the vast majority, while the majority of the foreigners who died or were killed during the Greek liberation struggle were also from Germany. This relationship was not one-sided, as the Greek Revolution was also a source of inspiration for public debate and aesthetics in Germany, and influenced the creation of a national feeling among Germans.

As part of the #germanphilhellenes2021 initiative, created in collaboration with the National Historical Museum, the Society for Hellenism and Philhellenism and the Museum of Philhellenism, the embassy’s Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts introduce the public to 21 German philhellenes, famous or unknown, from painter Karl Krazeisen to architect Ernst Ziller, as well as testimonies of German philhellenism in Germany and Greece.

The French Institute of Greece has planned a number of educational and cultural activities, spanning the entire year, on the occasion of Greece’s bicentennial celebrations, under the general headline "France - Greece: 200 years of Franco-Hellenic friendship and partnerships".

The French Embassy and French Institute will commemorate the Greek Revolution placing emphasis on the lasting ties between the peoples of Greece and France, and the rich history of French philhellenism. The Greek insurgents were deeply inspired by the spirit of the French Revolution while the Greek struggle for independence has, in its turn, served as a source of literary, artistic and sometimes political inspiration for the French, as evidenced by works such Victor Hugo's famous poem "L'enfant" and Eugène Delacroix's painting The Massacre at Chios.

The virtual exhibition La Grèce, par amour ("Out of love for Greece", online since 8 March 2021), designed in partnership with the National Library of France (BnF) and its press site Retro News, reveals the dynamics and scope of the philhellenic movement and is based on over 100 visual aids, such as newspapers, books, drawings, posters, paintings, correspondence, maps, plays, paintings, etc. from the archives of the BnF, the National Museum of Athens, the Library of the Greek Parliament, the Louvre Museum and other institutions.

A cartoon competition (15 May – 15 November 2021) is organised in partnership with the BnF and the National Historical Museum of Greece; the French Institute invites the public to create their own comic strips or "memes" dedicated to 1821, through an innovative free online application.

The French Institute also collaborates with the Greek Film Archive to host "Greece – France: Cinematic meetings", a vast retrospective dedicated to the common cinematographic history between the two countries; it will be officially launched as part of the 21st French Film Festival in April, where Greek film directors will present French films that have touched and inspired them.

The Institute will also host educational programmes, where high-school students will be able to participate in online group projects with Greek and French educational partners, exploring the cultural ties between the two countries since the time of the Greek Revolution.

The Russian Embassy in Greece has also announced that, on the occasion of the bicentenary of the 1821 Greek War of Independence, and in the framework of the Russian-Greek Year of History 2021 under the auspices of President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, it will honour the literary aspect of Philhellenism, by frequently posting on social media verses (in Greek) by famous Russian poets of that period, such as Alexander Pushkin, Wilhelm Küchelbecker and Kondraty Ryleyev, who were animated by philhellenic sentiments and praised the uprising of the Greeks against the Ottoman yoke.

The Embassy also posts features on important figures of the Greek struggle who had connections with Russia or Russian personalities, such as Governor Ioannis Kapodistrias (former Foreign Minister of Russia) and Naval Commander Laskarina Bouboulina.

Read also via Greek News Agenda: USA & Greece: Celebrating 200 Years of Friendship; “Greece 2021” | The celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the country’s Independence War; Antiquarianism and Philhellenism | An emblematic exhibition to celebrate the Greek War of Independence bicentennial; American and British Philhellenes

M.V. (Intro image: Battle of Navarino, Ambroise Louis Garneray, 1827-30, Museum of the History of France)

The post 2021 Bicentennial Celebrations by Foreign Embassies and Institutions appeared first on Greek News Agenda.