Athens, 13 December 2006
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Good morning.
I’ll start with the activities of the UN Security Council. As you know, Greece’s two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council – the central body of the United Nations; a body of major political importance – comes to an end in December.
From the programme for the activities of the Security Council, I would like to draw your attention to yesterday’s thematic debate – organized by the Qatari Presidency – on “Sustainable Peace in the Middle East”. In the end, there was a thematic debate on Middle East issues, and this discussion was held with the participation mainly of Permanent Representatives, with some countries represented by Deputy Foreign Ministers.
Today, in an open debate, the Security Council will discuss the Secretary General’s recent report on UNMIK, the UN Mission in Kosovo. In his report, the Secretary General notes progress in the implementation of the standards, underscoring the need for this progress to continue. Also noted in the report is that the positions of the two sides regarding the final status remain diametrically opposed. Finally, the report underlines the concern of the Kosovo Albanians that a significant delay in the resolution of the issue may have a high political and economic cost.
I would also like to tell you that on Friday there is to be a Security Council discussion, in closed consultations, of recent developments in the Cyprus issue and the activities of the UN force on the island.
That’s all I have to tell you on the activities of the Security Council. The more detailed information handout will be given to you.
Let me add that, in January, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Tanzania and Argentina will have completed their terms as non-permanent members of the Security Council, and will be succeeded, as non-permanent members for the next two years, by Belgium, Italy, Indonesia, Panama and South Africa. Russia will preside over the Security Council for the month of January 2007.
Regarding the activities of the Minister, today, 13 December, Foreign Minister Ms. Bakoyannis will attend the dinner being hosted in honour of Mr. Andrew Athens – a distinguished Greek from abroad who until recently was the President of the World Council of Hellenes Abroad (SAE) – by the Central Jewish Council.
On Thursday and Friday, Ms. Bakoyannis will participate in the European Council, in Brussels, together with the Prime Minister.
Next week, on Monday, 18 December, Ms. Bakoyannis will receive, at his request, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Mr. Ihsanoglu, who will be in Athens on a formal visit.
Later the same day – as we announced at our last meeting – Ms. Bakoyannis will meet with her Montenegrin counterpart Mr. Milan Rocen, and I remind you that their talks will be followed by the signing of the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the two countries, Greece and Montenegro.
On Tuesday, 19 December, Ms. Bakoyannis will attend the event being held by the Foreign Ministry marking 25 years since Greece’s accession to the European Union. On the afternoon of the same day, she will participate in the Community luncheon that is always hosted by the Ambassador of the country holding the EU Presidency – in this case, the Finnish Ambassador.
On 20 December, at 13:30, the Foreign Minister will hold a reception for the Foreign Ministry press corps and foreign correspondents.
Let me give you a brief outline of the agenda for the European Council. The Constitutional Treaty will be discussed, along with enlargement issues, with the welcoming of the two new members, Bulgaria and Romania. Also to be discussed are the issues of Turkey, Croatia and the Western Balkans.
Also among the Justice and Home Affairs issues, there is to be a discussion of the common European migration policy. The other issue is: Innovation, Energy and Climate Change. And, finally, External Relations, with the specific issues of strategic cooperation with Africa, Kosovo, the European Neighbourhood Policy, the Middle East, and, probably, Afghanistan.
Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Yannis Valinakis will also participate in the proceedings of the European Council.
With regard to Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Stylianidis’ programme, on Friday, 15 December, at 12:00, he will be the keynote speaker at the presentation of the book entitled: “Thrace: An historical and folklore perspective on its popular culture”. This will take place at the Foreign Ministry’s Y. Kranidiotis Amphitheatre.
Your questions, please.
Mr. Gilson: A week ago, Mr. Spokesman, you mentioned to us that Greek diplomacy was pursuing the freezing of over eight chapters in the negotiations with Turkey and a review clause after 18 months.
So how can it be considered that the objectives of Greek diplomacy were achieved in Monday’s decision from the General Affairs Council? And what is your comment on the fact that Turkey is not confronting a single penal clause, even if by 2009 it has not fulfilled it obligation to implement the Ankara Protocol?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As for the negotiating stance set out by the country, it was clear that – and I’m talking about negotiating positions – at a time when there was public and categorical expression, from a majority and tight group of member states – a group moving in the direction of a dramatic reduction in chapters, as compared to the number of chapters recommended by the European Commission; a proposal for one or two or three chapters to be frozen – there was a need for positions that would create an opposing force. And this was necessary to avert a dramatic reduction from the eight chapters proposed by the European Commission. And this goal, at the very least, had to be secured – and this was not at all a foregone conclusion.
We were well aware of what lay ahead of us, which was confirmed by the actual events: an exceptionally difficult debate, difficult negotiations.
So Greece, in its positions, had to bear in mind the dynamics of the debate so as to secure very basic elements of the Union’s sanctions policy. And at certain times there was strong pressure for reduction. That’s it regarding the number of chapters.
Regarding the review mechanism, we consider that our basic objective and our basic goal was achieved. Because there is in fact a review mechanism, which, in fact, I would say leaves no leeway for a certain number of years without the Union’s monitoring, examining and assessing Turkey’s stance regarding the obligations it has undertaken. It is a review mechanism that starts immediately, from 2007, but which clearly acknowledges certain political realities concerning 2007, emphasising 2008 and, later, 2009 if necessary. So there is a review mechanism.
The Commission is invited to report to the Council on Protocol issues. And the observations, notes and assessments in the Commission’s reports are essentially recommendations to the Council, which can, depending on the Commission’s findings regarding the continuing fulfilment or non-fulfilment of Turkey’s obligations, take new decisions if necessary.
So this is a mechanism that we considered sufficient, particularly when you bear in mind the extremely difficult climate of the nearly 12 hours of discussions and negotiations at the recent General Affairs Council.
Mr. Gilson: Can you convey to us the spirit of the discussion regarding the activation of the Regulation on direct trade with occupied Cyprus – and whether there was some agreement to discuss this again in January or in the near future, under the German Presidency.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There is no doubt that the Regulation exists as a pending issue. This Regulation has been discussed many times, and there has been no specific answer on this. I don’t think that the days remaining in December will allow for this matter, which has been pending for years, to be resolved.
So it would be reasonable for efforts to be renewed in January, and I cannot predict the outcome of these efforts.
Mr. Mihail: The decision of the 25 is the decision of the 25 Foreign Ministers. Will this, based on the regulations, provisions and treaties of the Union, have to be ratified by the heads of state? And I’m asking because you said that the enlargement issue – Croatia, Turkey, etc. – will be among the issues to be discussed at the Summit Meeting. So I ask: Will the heads of state hold another discussion of, ratify or reconsider, the decision of the 25, or is this issue considered closed, so we will hold a more general discussion? This is a subtle nuance . . .
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The European Council can discuss whatever issues it wishes to discuss. By the same token, however, there is no issue of their ratifying decisions from the Council of Foreign Ministers. These decisions are institutionally valid. The Council of Foreign Ministers is a decision-making body. The European Council may discuss whatever it likes, but with regard to this aspect of the issue of Euro-Turkish relations, a decision has been made by the GAERC.
Mr. Tsafos: I would like to ask about Montenegro. Is there provision for the Greek Consulate there . . .
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: It is reasonable to expect that there will be a Greek Embassy in Montenegro.
Mr. Tsafos: There is no timeframe?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I don’t know the specific timeframe at the moment. But soon, in any case.
Mr. Pollatos: I wanted to ask about the review mechanism, because I may not have understood correctly. You said that it leaves no room for a certain number of years; it is a review mechanism that starts in 2007. From what I understand, this review mechanism has to do with the recommendations of the European Commission – like that of 8 November, which is mentioned in the text of the conclusions adopted by the 25 Foreign Ministers. Where is the change and success? Was there some thought, some proposal, from a European country to change this; to stop the submission of recommendations by the Commission on Turkey and the other candidate countries? Because I don’t see this.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The paragraph of the Council’s conclusions refers clearly not only to monitoring in the sense of “follow up”, but also to a “review”.
So the review will take place through the Commission’s reports to the Council. The word “review” is specifically mentioned. That is, the particular comments that the Commission’s progress reports will now contain regarding this specific issue will now be a review.
That is the difference. When I say that there are not a certain number of years during which the process will simply continue, I mean that a review will not be carried out after a year or 18 months or 24 months. A review will be carried out in 2007 and in 2008 and, if necessary, in 2009.
So you can see that this comprises a timeframe, and one with intermediate stages, in fact. There will be discussion in the Council of Ministers. We consider, as I said – and given the intensity and difficulty of the 10-hour, tug-of-war negotiations – that we achieved our objective.
Mr. Pollatos: Was there some obligation for us to agree on this whatever the case? And a second part: Are the Finnish Presidency and Mr. Rehn tabling new chapters for opening today? And what will our position be on this?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I repeat that for Greece the message of the General Affairs Council’s decisions is plain and clear. The Foreign Minister said it in a crystal-clear manner in her statement immediately following the Council. It is a message that says that the European Union is not closing the door on Turkey, and at the same time it is a message that continuing progress in Turkey’s accession course will be affected – will not be smooth – if it doesn’t fulfil the obligations and commitments it has made.
We see this as a clear message; a message that is in accordance with the objectives and strategic choices Greece has made with regard to Turkey’s European course. This message will neither fade nor change if the procedures provided for are followed. And here, I am answering your second question. The fact that at some point the competent working group of the Council of the European Union will initiate the discussion – and the discussion is starting – on the rest of the chapters is a procedure that has been provided for. This process does not alter the message sent by the 25 Foreign Ministers.
Beyond that, I must tell you that there will in fact be a discussion, probably in the coming days, on the working-group level – experts, that is – regarding a certain number of chapters. Of these chapters, there are some regarding which conditions have already been set – benchmarks vis-a-vis their opening. Let me add, of course, that the process will continue normally within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference.
For us, the policy – just to clarify this – is clear. We have described it in a very simple manner: “full compliance – full membership”. That is our policy and we will follow through on it till the end.
Mr. Konstantinidis: Mr. Spokesman, remember that in 2005, at the Brussels summit, Turkey in fact signed article 9 of the Council’s conclusions: that, in 2006, it would recognise the Republic of Cyprus through the Customs Union. It did not honour its signature. Why should we assume that in these three years of reviews – given that there was a provision for a 2006 review even then – Turkey will honour its signature and why should we be optimistic that the Republic of Cyprus will be recognised.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There is no question here of being optimistic or pessimistic. There has to be political realism, based on respect for agreed-upon European texts. The European texts agreed upon by the 25 member states are perfectly clear and we and all the member states – as shown by their decision two days ago – will demand their implementation.
Ms. Karaviti: I have two questions: the first regards the trade regulation. Could you tell us where we stand in the discussion on that score at the moment. And the second, could you tell us how important you consider the Presidency statement on the Cyprus issue and the efforts that the UN will have to undertake with a view to finding a settlement.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: With regard to your first question, the last stage of discussions was the Finnish Presidency’s unsuccessful effort. We have nothing new on that.
This, of course, does not rule out a continuation of the discussion in the immediate future. I do not see that the discussion on the trade regulation – I am venturing an assessment – could take place in December. I think it is reasonable to expect that discussions on the trade regulation will begin in the New Year, i.e., under German Presidency.
Regarding your second question, the Presidency statement states the obvious and is, in any case, in agreement with Greece’s wishes regarding a continuation of the process to find a settlement on the Cyprus issue, in order to find a fair, viable and functional solution. We think that in order for this process to have a chance of being successful, it has to be a process that is very well prepared.
Beyond that, you know that the two communities, starting with the Republic of Cyprus, have accepted all the recent proposals by Mr. Gambari, whereas the Turkish Cypriot side accepted them, but with certain reservations. Only the acceptance by the Republic of Cyprus was unconditional.
Ms. Karaviti: Do you see that there is a will on the part of the European Union to link the Cyprus issue with Turkey’s European course?
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: No, I see no link and there is no link.
Mr. Konstantinidis: But this is considered an achievement by the Republic of Cyprus, if you will.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I did not go into an evaluation. I was asked whether there is a link and I answered in the negative. I also think that this is a success, but I was not asked about that. You did not ask me to tell you what the successes are. You asked me if I see a link.
Mr. Gogas: You said that in 2007 there are special political conditions, let’s say, that influence negotiations between the EU and Turkey. We basically all know that the substantial review will be done in 2008 and 2009, in terms of Turkey’s European obligations.
I would like to ask you whether there is a possibility in these two years, until 2008, for the discussion to derail from Turkey’s obligations regarding Cyprus, i.e., whether this gives Turkey enough time to shift discussions away from obligations with regard to Cyprus.
Opposition parties have criticised the decisions taken, but I would like to know whether this possibility concerns you.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Listen, the way in which Turkey will handle and deal with its obligations is Turkey’s responsibility. It is responsible and it has to implement any policies that it thinks serve its interests and priorities better.
Beyond that, the European Union, in its turn, will have a policy that it will need to implement, in line with its objectives and its interests. And let me add that the Union’s primary interest with regard to its enlargement policy is to preserve its credibility and its effectiveness.
And preserving its credibility and effectiveness should be the European Union’s strategic objective. I stress this because I have heard that the EU should have other strategic priorities. This is a strategic priority: a European Union functioning smoothly, effectively, with credibility and authority. All the rest comes later.
Mr. Santamouris: The question is whether the European Union, which has decided on a lowest common denominator regarding its policy on Turkey, is a choice reinforcing those in favour of Turkey’s accession to the European Union or those in favour of a special relationship. My second question is whether a dialogue is to begin soon on whether the European Union can absorb Turkey. This is one question.
The second question is whether we have any news on Mr. Gul’s visit to Athens, now that the Council of Ministers has reached a decision and the discussion on the Middle East was held at the Security Council. And my third question is whether there is something to announce on the Foreign Minister’s meeting with the US Ambassador-at-large on issues concerning the confronting of terrorism, at the latter’s request. Thank you.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: With regard to the special relationship and the absorption capacity, there are member states and governments that have expressed their views on the issue of a special relationship. This is not Greece’s view. I mentioned Greece’s view, i.e., “full compliance – full accession”. We believe that no one should deprive a country of the incentive and the vision to ultimately join the European Union, once it reaches the end of the road, i.e., once it fulfils its commitments and obligations vis-a-vis the European Union. This is all I can say at the moment. Moreover, no institutional discussion has begun within the European Union and I do not see that it will begin in the near future.
With regard to the absorption capacity, the discussion under way in the European Union on its absorption capacity does not specifically focus on Turkey, but on enlargements in general. A very interesting discussion has, in any case, begun.
With regard to Mr. Gul’s visit, I have nothing new to tell you, Greece’s intention is for this visit to take place within a reasonable amount of time – soon. Besides, the New Year starts in a few days and we will deal with that eventuality in the near future.
The answer to your last question is no. I have no news on this meeting.
Mr. Santamouris: A clarification. The first question related to whether, in the Foreign Ministry’s view, the decision taken reinforces those who support Turkey’s full accession or those Europeans in favour of a special relationship with Turkey. That was the question.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I think that the answer I gave you covers this aspect of your question, too. In any case, we think that a clear message emerges out of this decision and we described how we interpreted it. We are not shutting the door on Turkey. At the same time, it is understandable to expect candidate countries, and in this particular case Turkey, to fulfill certain conditions. This is the only safe way for their course towards Europe to continue.
Mr. Pollatos: I wanted to ask you whether you agree with Mr. Erdogan’s assessment that the European Union was unfair to Turkey. The second part of my question relates to the previous point on chapters, which come to working groups and through the Intergovernmental Conference and so on, whether – in political terms – the time chosen by the Finnish Presidency to table these particular chapters – also proposed by Mr. Rehn – tells you anything. Because I presume that at a political level, one day after the unanimous decision from the 25 member states, it will be difficult for a country to set a benchmark or to stop the discussion. And if things are different, please correct me.
Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: With regard to Mr. Erdogan’s statement, you understand that I have no comment.
The