Athens, 13 July 2007

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos:  Good morning. I don’t have any specific announcements for you at this time. I am at your disposal to answer any questions you have.

Ms. Nikolaou: How do you comment on Mr. Talat’s refusal to meet with Mr. Papadopoulos because of the cancellation of a friendly match between a Turkish Cypriot team and an English team?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I am aware of the pretext used by the Turkish Cypriot leader. I can’t know the real reason or motives. Let it suffice for me to remind you here that last March, when there was a general impression that the agreement to start implementation of the “Gambari” process was virtually finalised, there was a withdrawal on the part of the Turkish Cypriot side literally at the last moment.

Ms. Peloni: Yesterday, the Minister, at the cabinet meeting, stated that in view of the elections in Turkey and the changes taking place, we are preparing for the possibility of a special relationship with the EU. What preparations is the Foreign Ministry making for this possibility?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Allow me to make a clarification regarding the introductory part of your question. The statement of the Foreign Minister, the reference to the possibility of a special relationship, was not linked with the domestic political situation or the prospects or developments concerning the domestic political situation in our neighbouring country.

The Foreign Ministry made a general statement on the climate prevailing recently or that has been taking shape recently in certain European capitals and in quarters of European public opinion – an atmosphere not all that positive vis-à-vis the Turkish candidacy – and she stressed that despite the fact that the political and institutional state of affairs in the EU is that there is a unanimous decision for Turkey’s accession course to continue with the prospect of accession, this has not changed and can be changed only through new unanimous decisions.

Beyond that, what is, if you will, of substantial concern to the Greek stance is that the strategy Greece is following vis-à-vis Turkey’s European course remains firm. That is, it abides by the twofold strategy that we have referred to many times: full compliance, full accession. At the same time we cannot but bear in mind certain developments in the European state of affairs and certain indications.

In this sense there is the possibility of the special relationship issue being tabled at some as yet undesignated time. It was stressed that Greece does not agree with the ‘special relationship’ thinking, because we consider that it is a process that does not offer the potential, the motives and the safety valves of the current process. In any case, doing our job as the Foreign Ministry we are preparing, as we should, for scenarios and eventualities that no one is ruling out we might come up against at some point.

The Foreign Ministry’s preparations concern tactical moves, the concerns and thoughts that will guide the Greek stance if such an issue is raised. And the Foreign Minister made the reminder that passing over into a possible special relationship or special relationship process requires and presupposes unanimity among the member states once again. That is, it presupposes a favourable vote from Greece. Greece’s stance in this discussion is based on our firm belief that the current process is correct and useful for all parties.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: Mr. Spokesman, I wanted to ask this: I read in yesterday’s European Parliament resolution – which was supported by all of the Greek MEPs from Greece’s governing party, with the exception of Mr. Samaras, and regarding which you expressed the satisfaction of the Foreign Ministry at its being passed – I read that each state has the right to designate its own name.

And I wanted to ask whether this is Greece’s policy. Because I had understood that it was exactly the opposite: that Greece refuses to give the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the right to use the name it wants to use. Which of the two is the case? What is Greece’s policy on this issue? Because we’re a little confused.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I think yesterday’s answer was very clear on this. And I’m sure you saw what the Foreign Ministry’s reaction to yesterday’s development was; a development that, I remind you, concerns a text of the European Parliament that is neither of a legal character nor binding. Just so we know precisely what framework we are in.

The fact that we ascertained and expressed an assessment that it was a positive development has to do with the fact that the text that was adopted by the plenary is very different – and I think all of us in this room will agree on this – from, and a substantial improvement over, the initial text that was adopted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.

And this really – and there is no issue of pleased or not – this really was the result of coordinated actions on the part of all of Greece’s MEPs.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: Yes, but you aren’t answering.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: So our ascertaining that we had a specific positive development from a comparatively negative point of departure was the substance of the Foreign Ministry’s stance. And, in fact, we referred to a number of successful changes achieved; changes that I think we all agree are moving in a much more positive direction that the wordings that existed in previous texts.

Regarding your specific question, as you know, Greece has a specific perception of this issue. And it is not just Greece’s perception, because at this time and for over 10 years now, an international process has been going on under the auspices of the United Nations; a process aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution on the specific issue of the name. So there is a United Nations process that determines that a mutually acceptable solution on this pending issue must be found.

Greece is participating constructively in this process, and, as you can see – and I think this is common sense – such a negotiation process under the auspices of the United Nations is not aimed at how we will name another country. It is an issue being addressed by the UN.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: Mr. Spokesman, excuse me, let me clarify my question. For twenty years now it has been my understanding – and correct me if my understanding has been wrong – that Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have disagreed on the name that our neighbouring country will take.

Yesterday, I read a text in favour of which the MEPs of the governing part voted; a text that says that our neighbouring country, like every country in the world, has the right to name itself as it likes. If those who voted believe this, why isn’t this right recognised for the “Republic of Macedonia” today? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: What I’m saying, first, is that what may surprise or puzzle you is essentially determined and defined by the UN process. This means that the UN has proceeded to a process within which an effort is being made to achieve a mutually acceptable name.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: I am asking whether what they voted in favour of is the position of the government and the position of Greece. That is, that it is the right of every state to have the name it wants. Because if that is the position, I don’t see what argument we have with our neighbouring country. Do we have it, or don’t we? Because you went and voted in the European Parliament that it has the right to name itself as it likes.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Excuse me, but we didn’t vote in favour of anything.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: MEPs of the governing party, with the exception of Mr. Samaras.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: No Foreign Ministry official voted in favour of anything, and no government official voted in favour of anything.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: I correct myself – you are absolutely right: The MEPs of the governing party, with the exception of Mr. Samaras.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I cannot speak on behalf of the MEPs. I am not the spokesperson for Greek MEPs as a whole or in part. To a specific question I am answering as the Foreign Ministry. And I remind you …

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: So you don’t agree with the resolution that was passed. That every country has the right to choose its name.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I want to remind you of an undeniable reality. That the United Nations has for some 10 years now adopted a process aimed at finding a solution to a pending issue that concerns the name of our neighbouring country.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: That’s absolutely right. But I asked you about the European Parliament, not the UN.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: We made a general assessment of yesterday’s development, but your question has me referring to more specific parts of the text. So I would like to remind you that in another part of the text that was adopted, the importance of successfully completing the talks on the name issue under the auspices UN at the soonest possible time is stressed.

In the same text, you referred to a general principle. This is a general formulation. With regard to this specific issue, however, the same text makes the reminder of how important it is to successfully conclude the discussions being held under the auspices of the UN to find a solution.

Mr. Konstantakopoulos: I acknowledge that you are absolutely right. Unfortunately, the text doesn’t say just that. It separates FYROM’s accession course from the resolution of the name issue. And I ask: Did the government renounce the right to veto accession to the EU and NATO? Has it renounced it in advance?

If not, how does it intend to preserve its potential to negotiate this compromise solution that you say it wants?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As you can see, the votes of Greek MEPs will not be explained or interpreted by the Foreign Ministry, but by the MEPs themselves – those who voted in favour and those who voted against it, despite the fact that all of them worked together successfully to change the text.

So in answer to the specific question you are asking at this time, my answer is categorical. Greece renounces none of the options it has as a member of the EU and NATO, and this was stressed in a very clear manner by the Foreign Minister yesterday in her speech to the cabinet.

Mr. Gilson: Could you tell us why the Ambassador to Skopje, Ms. Grossomanidou, was recalled?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There are Foreign Ministry announcements that have drawn a line under the matter.

Mr. Gilson: According to your announcement, she will hand over her post in the next few days.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: If the announcement says that, I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Gilson: Why was the Ambassador called back?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I needn’t repeat all the Foreign Ministry’s official positions on this particular issue. Ms. Grossomanidou initially came to Athens because it was considered advisable for certain explanations and clarifications to be given on a specific interview she gave. Beyond that the Foreign Ministry of a few days ago stands.

Mr. Gilson: Let me ask you…

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I have nothing further to add to what is already known.

Mr. Gilson: Yes, but I would like to ask the following. Given that the Greek Prime Minister has been sending a great many public messages in his speeches these last few months, both in Greece and abroad, encouraging FYROM to reach a compromise on the dispute, on the name, does the fact that Ms. Grossomanidou is saying that Greece has to face the new reality, i.e., that FYROM has been recognized under its constitutional name by more than half the UN member states, indicate a personal professional incompetence or a communication failure of the centre, between the Foreign Ministry and its Ambassadors around the world?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Ms. Grossomanidou is in Athens, she will travel to Skopje by the end of this month to hand over her post and it has been decided that the assumption of duties by the new head of Greece’s Liaison Office in Skopje is scheduled to take place within the first ten days of August.

Mr. Gilson: So, you are saying this is a personal professional incompetence.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I’m not saying anything of the kind. I repeated word for word, unless I missed a comma or an “and” somewhere – correct me if I’m wrong – the Foreign Ministry’s official announcement.

Mr. Papathanasiou: Mr. Spokesman, on the substance of the European Parliament’s resolution and the reports about a separation of the name process and the country’s accession to Euro-Atlantic institutions, to what extent could this be creating difficulties for Athens’ negotiating position? Do you believe – in other words, is it your appreciation – that it will be a problem at some point?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The Greek government has drawn up a very specific policy. And it has set it based on a realistic appreciation of the existing diplomatic situation on this issue. And, of course, it has drawn it up based on the possibilities that it has as a member of the European Union and NATO in its efforts to reach a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue.

Yesterday, at the cabinet meeting, the Foreign Minister, as you might already know from your own sources, clearly referred to how the Greek government will take its final decision on this issue based on three criteria, on three sets of criteria, if you will:

·          First of all, the implementation of a policy of good neighbourly relations on the part of Skopje, without references or actions of an irredentist reasoning.

·          Secondly, the criterion of the neighbouring country’s stance on the ongoing process within the United Nations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution, and

·          Thirdly, based on the evaluation of the neighbouring country’s response to a series of criteria and conditions that are also added to the framework that NATO has set.

She also stressed that Greece cannot and will not accept that the Interim Accord be an object of selective and piecemeal implementation. This means that Greece cannot be bound by references in the Interim Accord when the neighbouring does not comply with other obligations included in this Accord.

Ms. Kefala: Will Ms. Bakoyannis accompany the Prime Minister on his visit to Paris on 30 July?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Yes.

Mr. Gilson: I would like to ask whether you can give us more details on Ms. Merkel’s visit?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: No, I think that a few days ago, the government spokesman gave an outline of the basic issues expected to be discussed. I have nothing further to add to that. As you know, the normal practice is that information on the Prime Minister’s meetings with foreign leaders is not given by the Foreign Ministry.

Mr. Gilson: Will the Foreign Minister attend?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I don’t know. Any further questions?

Mr. Tsaka: Regarding Kosovo, we have different clashes on resolving the issue, i.e., a disagreement on the part of Russia and Serbia, whereas, on the other hand, we see that the European Union is insisting on resolving this issue, one way or another. In fact, Mr. Rehn said that the European Union will pay a heavy price if a solution is not found quickly. What will the impact on the European Union be, and also on the region in general, of not finding a solution?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: You are asking me here to make an appraisal of probable future developments. I will not make an appraisal of probable future developments. Our priority at the moment is to be able, as the international community, to come out of today’s stagnancy and find a way to reach the best possible result.

For Greece, the best possible result would be a solution that would safeguard regional stability. We are still of the view that this is more likely to be achieved if a solution comes out of consensus and a compromise process between the two parties.

Mr. Tsaka: Ms. Pak said that the Kosovo issue is not at all of concern to Russia or the United States; it is of concern only  to Europe and the Balkans. Mr. Ceku said that if no decisions are made on the issue of Kosovo’s status, then the decision will be taken unilaterally…

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I do not intend to get into the substance of this or make a comment on Ms. Pak’s statements or any other person’s statements. I see that this issue concerns the entire international community and, in any case, at the present stage, when this particular issue is at the UN Security Council, it is logical that it should concern all the members of the Security Council.

Thank you very much.