Athens, 27 February 2008

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Good morning. I have a few announcements to make. On Monday, 3 March, at 12:00, Foreign Minister Ms. Dora Bakoyannis will meet at the Foreign Ministry with NATO Secretary General Mr. Scheffer. Issues on the agenda include the enlargement of the Alliance, the situation in Kosovo, NATO’s relations with countries in the Western Balkans, NATO-EU relations, and, of course, NATO’s operations and presence in Afghanistan. The meeting will be followed by statements to the news media.

On the same day, at 15:15, a meeting will be held at the Foreign Ministry between the NATO Secretary General and journalists. This briefing and discussion is being organized by the competent NATO secretariat.

Regarding Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Valinakis’ programme, today he is in Sofia to participate in the final session on the Stability Agreement and the opening Meeting of the Regional Cooperation Council.

Tomorrow, 28 February, Mr. Valinakis will participate in the Meeting of South East European Cooperation Process (SEECP) Foreign Ministers.

Let me remind you that immediately following this briefing there will be a briefing on the economic diplomacy action programme – a review of last year’s activities and the programme for this year’s. Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Doukas and Secretary General for International Economic Relations and Development Cooperation Mr. Skylakakis will brief you on our economic diplomacy ahead of tomorrow’s event at the Athens Concert Hall, which will take place at 12:00 and is being organized by the Foreign Ministry in collaboration with the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEV) and the Panhellenic Exporters Association (PEA).

That’s it for announcements. Your questions, please.

Mr. Hadoulis: I wanted to ask whether the Minister has issued a statement on the incidents we had in Belgrade and at the U.S. Embassy a few days ago. I haven’t seen an assessment. I may be wrong.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As you know, there is a position from the European Union. From the Presidency. Beyond that, it is certain that there is a need to respect the obligations deriving from the Treaty of Vienna, regarding the protection of diplomatic missions and the personnel of diplomatic missions in the countries to which they are accredited.

Mr. Kottaridis: I wanted to ask whether the Foreign Ministry and the government are taking note of the opinion polls being published, and that the vast majority of the Greek people do not want a compound or double name on the Skopje issue. And whether you have any comment on the new demonstration scheduled for today in Skopje, and whether there are concerns regarding incidents at our liaison office there.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I’ll start with your second question. At this stage I will not comment on the scheduled demonstration – supported by the governing party, VMRO – in Skopje. As you can understand, our attention and actions are focussed protecting the Greek diplomatic mission there.

Our Ambassador, Ms. Alexandra Papadopoulou, has been in contact with the competent services of the Skopje Foreign Ministry, drawing their attention to the obligation – as we just said – of every host country to take the necessary security measures for all accredited diplomatic missions on their territory.

I underline that the Greek government is handling the whole matter in what I believe is unquestionably a composed and serious manner.

Regarding the issue of the opinion polls. All democratic governments, in making policy, take the interests of the country as their principal and fundamental guide. At the same time, they take note of public opinion.

The objective with foreign policy issues is for there to be the greatest possible consensus. And within this framework, as you know, there is substantial briefing of state and political figures. Political parties are briefed in order to create the conditions for the existence of the greatest possible national consensus.

Ms. Florez: Can we have a few details concerning the talks that are to take place in New York on the Skopje issue?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Procedural details, or details of substance?

Ms. Florez: Procedural. I don’t think you give us details concerning the substance of the talks.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I like the realism in your approach.

As you know, the mediator announced the continuation of the negotiation process in New York. At this stage, it will take the form of successive two-party meetings of the Secretary General’s Personal Envoy with the negotiators from the two countries.

Mr. Milakas: Since the talks are starting, I would like to ask you to reiterate the position of the Greek government. That is, does it remain ‘one name for all uses’?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I refer you to all of the discussions that have taken place, the speeches, the briefings carried out by the Foreign Minister – recently, in the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs, and, of course, the Prime Minister’s answer of a week ago to a relevant question.

Mr. Vidalis: Based on the new round being started by Mr. Nimetz, is he expected to present any new, more specific proposal on the name and how to deal overall with the pending Skopje issue?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As you know, about 10 days ago, Mr. Nimetz presented a new framework proposal. The next procedural stage is the evaluation of this proposal that has been carried out by the two governments: observations, notes, and their proposals based on this text.

The Greek side promptly announced that Mr. Vassilakis had been instructed to inform Mr. Nimetz that the Greek side, after careful consideration, had formulated objections, observations and proposals on this text. I have nothing further to add at this stage.

Mr. Barakat: Can you tell us about the results of Ms. Bakoyannis visits to Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The tour has not been completed.

Mr. Barakat: Whether Greece wants something specific from this visit.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As you can understand, because I have not participated in this very important visit of the Foreign Minister to three friendly, Maghreb countries, I have nothing to tell you at this time concerning the results of the meetings so far. Ms. Bakoyannis is getting back today, at 19:00, and we will be able to brief you fully on the results of the visit.

Mr. Pollatos: Can you tell us the results of the investigation that was carried out at the Foreign Ministry into the leaking of a document to a specific newspaper?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I don’t have anything for you on that.

Mr. Pollatos: Has the investigation been completed? Will you have something? When do you think you will have something on this?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Mr. Pollatos, whatever there was to say on this issue has been said. And I think that you, too, will agree that the focus of attention and the effort concerns the substance of the negotiations in progress. Of course, if there is anything new, you will be informed.

Mr. Pollatos: I would like to continue regarding the substance, if I may. The assessment at the UN is that the negotiations are at an impasse because the two countries have diverging positions. Is there any comment from the Foreign Ministry?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I am not aware of that assessment. I haven’t seen that expressed officially anywhere.

Mr. Pollatos: So your assessment is that Greece and Skopje have converging positions?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I don’t think what you’re saying can be inferred from my answer. In any case, when negotiations are in progress, it means that something is being negotiated; that is, the views of the parties do not coincide.

Ms. Karaviti: I would like to ask two questions. The first – I saw what you answered earlier, but I would like you to allow me to focus on one aspect of the Greek position on the Skopje issue. I would like you to give me the Greek government’s stance on the issue of a double name.

And my second question: I would like you to tell me whether the Greek side sees any irredentist tendencies on the other side; tendencies that should be dealt with through the solution.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I’ll start with your second question. This is something that has been stressed repeatedly and clearly by the Greek government when, in repeated instances, cause has been given by the other side.

You are aware that the core of Greece’s policy has never been a fixation on the rationale of “the name per se”. But there has been and is the certainty, which is confirmed by the actions taken by the Skopje government, that the name is, and is being used as, a vehicle for precisely this irredentist, historically groundless thinking and irredentist actions. This is why the name issue is of concern. It is a serious issue of good neighbourly relations. It is not Greece insisting, for sentimental or other reasons, on “the name per se”.

Regarding the first question you raised, I would like to start by reminding you that the Skopje side persisted and persists in an approach aimed at total bilateralization of the issue, despite the fact that we have repeatedly stated – based on various arguments that have never been refuted credibly – that the issue is not bilateral.

Skopje insisted on total bilateralization, and its perspective regarding a double name was that there should be one name that will be valid for the whole world – its current constitutional name – and another name in effect only for Greece, and the negotiations under UN auspices are taking place on what Greece will call Skopje.

You can see that such an outlook regarding a double formula or a double name cannot serve as a point of departure for any discussion.

Mr. Vidalis: So is Skopje’s rationale of one name for relations with Greece and one name for the whole world – the thinking that exists currently in the Nimetz proposal, the double-name reasoning, though with different parameters, of course – positive for you? Is it something that you are now discussing in New York?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I won’t add anything further to what I noted before, because, as you rightly said, it concerns the substance of what is being discussed and what is to be discussed in New York. Regarding these ideas, Greece has stated its objections and observations, making proposals for amendments to the text that has been proposed.

At this point I would like to note something that is widely known, but that is worth repeating. It will answer further questions and help us understand one another. We are at a turning point in the negotiations and the Greek diplomatic effort.

On Friday, the talks will be held. These talks are taking place just a few days before the meeting of NATO foreign ministers. This is a meeting that, among other things, will concern itself with preparations for the Summit Meeting that is to take place in early April.

One of the basic issues – if not the most basic issue – to be discussed there is the Alliance’s enlargement policy, which our neighbouring country wants to be a part of. This sequence of critical and important discussions underlines the delicate stage we are at in the negotiations.

We have to take under very serious consideration the precise importance of this stage in time. And based on this consideration – at least on the part of the Foreign Ministry – we will be very careful and we will keep you as fully briefed as we can in our official capacity.

Mr. Milakas: Mr. Spokesman, has there been any change in the situation that would lead the Greek government to meet NATO’s request for a strengthening of Greece’s contribution with regard to Afghanistan?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There is a broader issue of how the NATO mission in Afghanistan is evolving. Let me stress here – so that we don’t forget this – that the NATO presence in Afghanistan exists and is evolving in implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, and I say this as a reminder of the legal basis for this mission.

Beyond that, Greece has a very serious and significant presence in Afghanistan and the other missions around the world. Greece has been a member of the Alliance for 55 years. Greece’s participation in the Alliance’s efforts throughout the years has been and is substantial, vital and serious. Greece is a trusted and important partner and ally in NATO, and this must be borne in mind now and in the coming stages.

Mr. Fourlis: Have you been informed or can you tell us: Does Mr. Nimetz intend to discuss all the issues with Mr. Vassilakis and Mr. Dimitrov? That is, does he intend to fill in all the blanks that we saw in the plan that – for better or for worse, it came out in the press – he submitted to you?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Starting with your last question, at this time there isn’t a clear picture of the duration these talks will have; the talks that will be held in New York on Friday. I think Mr. Nimetz is keeping the option open to decide according to how the discussions progress.

Regarding the issue of whether he will summon the Foreign Ministers, there is no such information at this time, either officially or unofficially.

Regarding your first question, the framework of Greece’s presence in this process is public knowledge. It is an effort to find a solution. An effort to find a mutually acceptable solution. This is the framework of the negotiator’s mandate. Beyond that, there are more specific directives, but I won’t go into those.

Mr. Bibe: Mr. Spokesman, I would like to ask whether there is anything new concerning the issue of recognition of Kosovo’s independence. And second, is this recognition somehow linked with developments in the Skopje name issue?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: As concerns how the Greek government is confronting the new state of affairs in Kosovo, I think that it has been stressed repeatedly and officially – by the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, that is – that Greece will look at every dimension and aspect of the matter: repercussions for regional security, repercussions for Greek interests. And at some later stage Greece will take its decisions. This is the case as we speak.

As for the link between developments in Kosovo and the name process, the negotiation efforts on the name issue are certainly not taking place in a political, geopolitical or other vacuum. At the same time, however, I want to underline that the negotiations have their own particular content, objective and purpose, which, as determined by the UN, is the matter of finding a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue. That is what the negotiations are. That is the objective of the negotiations.

If I were to make a link, it would be this: If – as is the Greek government’s firm desire – a mutually acceptable solution is achieved on this issue, there will be beneficial repercussions for the stability of the wider region. It will also have a positive impact on our bilateral relations, which will move ahead towards full normalization, to our mutual benefit. It will have a very positive and direct impact on our neighbouring country’s aspirations to accede to NATO and the European Union.

As you know, the support that Greece has given from time to time to similar aspirations of neighbouring countries – such as Bulgaria and Romania – as well as other countries that are at another stage in the accession process, has been valuable to those countries. At difficult times in negotiations, when there were doubts or concerns from many partners, Greek support, the Greek position – coming from a neighbouring country that has better knowledge of the region’s issues – had a very substantial, positive impact on the course of the negotiations and accession course of our neighbouring countries.

I am certain – as should be all those who read or hear us in Skopje – that this will also be the case if the issue we are addressing is removed from the path. And the only way to remove it is to achieve a mutually acceptable solution.

Ms. Tsaka: Mr. Spokesman, Kosovo's independence is considered by Albanians, Western countries and by the countries that recognised it, as the start of peace and stability for the region. Here, in Greece, it is said that Kosovo's independence is a matter of concern or, let’s say, that it brings tension to the region, and it is being associated with certain scenarios about a "Greater Albania". Given all this, is the government worried or does it perhaps agree with what is being said?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: You realise that analyses by distinguished journalists or researchers and academics specialised in international relations and in the region are being expressed within the framework of a public dialogue on an important issue that is of concern to the region and to our country’s foreign policy.

Beyond that, what you should keep in mind is the Greek government’s official positions that I just mentioned. And let me make something clear with regard to what you mentioned, so as to avoid misunderstandings. It is not only in Greece that there is talk of concern, worries and the need for careful assessments. The same goes for all the countries in the region that are members of the European Union and members of NATO.

As you know, Greece is in constant contact with Bulgaria and Romania; there was also a trilateral meeting. Many others are concerned, too. These are reasonable concerns, because there is a new order of things in a fragile region. It was and remains fragile. Our effort should therefore aim at making it possible for this objectively fragile region to be able to resolve issues that are sometimes a result of the past, and build a better future.

Ms. Kourbella: I would like to ask the following: Does the European Union have a particular position on the Skopje name issue? Of course it has no obligation institutionally, but at least as a partner. With regard to the briefing of Ambassadors, I would like your answer on this question; i.e., that Greece should go to the United Nations with a European position as well – not just with a Greek position. It is a member state of a Union that is an international organisation, like the UN.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Let me remind you very briefly of the three key points of European policy on this issue.

The first point: Good neighbourly relations are not just another criterion, they are a fundamental criterion and a prerequisite for the accession course of all the interested countries.

Second: There is no doubt that within both the European Union and NATO, enlargement and accession process decisions are taken unanimously. Greece – there should be no doubt about this – fully retains its rights and options as a member of these organisations.

The third point is the latest European Commission Progress Report on what the country has achieved so far. This report notes a series of deficiencies, problems, gaps and the need for our neighbouring country to make substantial progress on many issues in order for us to see, to look at, when its accession course can move forward.

To sum up these three points: Good neighbourly relations. The indisputable and inalienable right of the member states as part of unanimous decision-making, and thirdly the latest Progress Report of the European Commission, which was not very encouraging.

Ms. Nikolaou: Mr. Spokesman, do you think that Mr. Christofias' election as President of the Republic of Cyprus creates a new state of affairs concerning the resumption of efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: The Foreign Minister sent a message of warm congratulations to the President of the Republic of Cyprus. As you are aware and as it was announced, similar messages have been sent by the Prime Minister and other political figures. On this occasion, it was stressed in the Foreign Minister’s letter – and I would like to repeat it – that the Cypriot Republic’s efforts to reunify the island within the framework of a mutually acceptable solution on the Cyprus problem and to put an end to the Turkish occupation are firmly supported by Greece.

Our common goal is a viable, functional solution, compliant with EU values within the framework of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, pursuant to UN resolutions and decisions.

A solution that will allow all the island’s inhabitants – both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot – to benefit from the dividends of peace and development produced by participation in the European family.

Beyond that, there is a certainty, and it is being voiced, that during the new Cypriot President's term in office, every effort will be made in this direction, given that everything seems to indicate that 2008 will be an important year for the Cyprus issue.

Ms. Rigou: On the name issue. A double name along the lines of the constitutional name domestically and a mutually accepted name internationally. It this acceptable to our country? And do you think that the new state of Kosovo will be viable in the long term?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: With regard to your first question, we have exhausted this issue. I have already answered, stressing the stage we are currently at in the negotiations.

With regard to your second question, whether or not Kosovo is viable under the new circumstances. We have said that independence, any developments, cannot be a panacea for a state’s progress and economic growth. Many serious efforts are needed – continuous efforts – in this direction.

Mr. Tsorakis: Do you know what the process for inviting a new state to join will be at next week’s NATO Council of Foreign Ministers? Is there room for the Greek government to exert some influence in order for this invitation not to be addressed to the country?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Once again, I would like to answer your question by repeating something that I said earlier, which was also said by either NATO member state representatives or NATO officials, i.e., that it is certain that within an Alliance decisions are taken unanimously. This is the first point. This is a general, inviolable principle; it is the quintessence of how alliances work.

With regard to the particular process, as you know communiques are issued at summit meetings and regular Foreign Ministers meetings, etc. The wording of the communique is also decided upon unanimously. Its content regarding this issue is again the result of unanimity amongst the member states.

Mr. Gatopoulos: On the same issue, I would like to ask the following: In order for the Greek side to be satisfied should there be an implemented agreement or simply an agreement? That is, could the country join NATO before changing its name or having simply committed to change it?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I would like to refer you to the position: "no solution-no invitation”. "no solution-no invitation” means no accession.

Mr. Athanassopoulos: Two questions on this issue. Because you mentioned the issue of unanimity, I would like your comment on some of the recurring articles on an attempt by the NATO Legal Service to issue an opinion on circumventing Greece’s veto. Whether you are at all aware that such a process has been initiated and what is your comment on that. Second question. Rumours and articles using the publication of the Nimetz proposal as a pretext, refer to some “secret” appendix, because this particular proposal has an appendix A. I would like your comment on that. Thank you.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I have no relevant information on either of the two issues that you raised.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: It goes without saying that with regard to unanimity, all that I said earlier still stands.

Mr. Milakas: On a completely different issue, beyond what we’ve discussed. I would like to ask whether there have been complaints about irregularities in our Embassy in Mexico, and if so, if there is an intention to carry out an investigation into the matter. If there is such an intention.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I have read various things in the press about this issue. I have nothing to say at the moment. I think it is obvious that if there are official allegations, and if they are examined and lead to certain findings, etc., legal provisions will be respected.

Mr. Pollatos: Could you inform us and enlighten us as to the results of the poll that has been commissioned by the Foreign Ministry on the Skopje issue? And a second question: whether – following the Minister’s contacts with the heads of the political parties that are represented in the Hellenic Parliament – you consider that you have achieved consensus and whether they back your handling of the situation.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I would like to answer the second part of your question. We are in the middle of a negotiation process, and despite the fact that we are in the middle of a negotiation process, the decision of the government and the Foreign Ministry to brief the President of the Hellenic Republic, of course, and also the leaders of the main political parties is firm, it is a given, and it is being implemented.

At this stage, the thinking is to brief and then create the conditions and –as I said earlier – the dynamic for the consensus required on matters of foreign policy, be they this particular issue that concerns us right now or other serious foreign policy issues.

This is the stage that we are at. There was a substantial briefing. When needed, this will be repeated, depending on developments.

With regard to the Foreign Ministry poll, I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Mr. Pollatos: I would like to ask whether following the Ministry’s visit to the Maghreb countries, a similar round of visits to European countries, to other partners, to discuss the Skopje issue is scheduled, now that FYROM officials are carrying out such a round. Is the possibility of visits by any of the Ministers under examination?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Let me distinguish between two different issues. The Minister’s visit to these important countries – friendly to Greece – are part of the efforts to promote bilateral economic, political, and other relations.

Secondly, our relations with these countries are of particular importance in the light of the major and substantial discussion of French President Mr. Sarkozy’s proposal for a Mediterranean Union. So, they also have this dimension.

Now, with regard to the Foreign Minister’s contacts with her European counterparts, you realise that as the Minister of a European Union member state, she benefits from frequent contacts in person – at the regular monthly or other Foreign Minister meetings – or the option of contacting her EU counterparts by telephone or otherwise.

So the options are open, nothing prevents her from doing that – although that does not mean visits are necessarily required – but, in any case, she will be at the NATO Summit on 6 March, where she will meet all her counterparts.

Yesterday, Ambassador Vassilakis met with the Ambassadors from EU and NATO member states, Russia and China at a different - but very substantial - level. So you see that there is constant briefing on our part as well. There is no mindset of racing against, competing with or following what the other side is doing. The other side is doing what it considers useful for its own objectives.

Greece fully exercises the options it has as an old member state of the European Union and NATO.

Mr. Santamouris: A question regarding a statement that FYROM’s Prime Minister is reported to have made, saying that they prefer the name to NATO accession, because the latter can take place at a different moment in time, whereas the former defines the "national Macedonian identity" through the ages. If the awaited proposal or name proposal under negotiation goes in this direction, is there any possibility of Greece consenting to it, even if it is just one?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: I think we have repeatedly talked about the negotiations and Greece’s stance. With regard to Mr Gruevski’s statement, it is a recurring statement making a comparison between NATO accession and the name. There is nothing new in it.

With regard to historical identity through the ages, it would be impractical within the framework of this meeting for me to quote the hundreds of thousands, millions of pages written on this issue by distinguished historians from around the world. Thank you.

Mr. Bibe: (off microphone) I would like to ask whether, apart from the name issue, the neighbouring country can join NATO.

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: There is no isolated name issue. There is an issue of good neighbourly relations related with this issue, and of course an issue of unanimous decision-making within NATO. In that context, Greece retains the right to exercise all of its rights and options.

With regard to other countries, Albania and Croatia, they have made their own progress and their own efforts to achieve their goal and this will also be judged at upcoming NATO meetings.

Thank you.