Dialogue is essential for a lasting peace
As the international stage thrums with tension from the war in Ukraine, strain in the Balkans, civil wars in Africa and the new tragedy unfolding in the Middle East, Greek-Turkish cooperation and dialogue acquire fresh political dimensions.
The Greek-Turkish relationship should and could become an element of stability in the wider region; despite the well-known differences dividing us, this has been accomplished in the past.
The two countries have worked together to douse crises in the Balkans, and in the Middle East, too, we took the initiative, with [Turkish foreign minister] Ismail Cem, to visit Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, during what was one of the worst periods of tension between the two.
This novel relationship stemmed from the historic decisions reached at the 1999 European Union summit in Helsinki. Greece played a decisive role in shaping the framework that emerged, which included roadmaps for Cyprus’ induction into the bloc, the resolution of several issues related to the Cyprus problem and the demarcation of the continental shelf between Greece and Turkey. The framework further comprised commitments from Turkey relating to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. And it wasn’t just optimism either; dozens of bilateral agreements were signed on a slew of issues, from immigration, energy interconnection and a ban on mines on our borders, to cooperation in a plethora of economic and cultural fields.
Together with my counterpart Ismail Cem, we bolstered thousands of civil society initiatives, as a rapprochement without diplomacy and civil society engagement would have stood on very shaky foundations. The solidarity displayed by the two nations in the wake of the devastating earthquakes that struck both countries that year set the tone. Tourism between the two – practically nonexistent until then – skyrocketed and bilateral trade shot up from $700 million in 1999 to reach $4 billion in 2018.
Exploratory talks also commenced between the two countries in a bid to chart a common course for resolving the issues that divided us at the bilateral level. Everything that was set in motion and everything that was achieved in the Greek-Turkish rapprochement of 1999 and was carried on with certain steps by subsequent governments is an important legacy.
We came close on the issues of the continental shelf and Cyprus but political circumstances, such as changes of government, effectively halted this progress. After the attempted coup in Turkey in 2016 in particular, relations were put on ice and we also had some moments of very sharp tension indeed, reminiscent of the pre-Helsinki years.
As prime minister, in May 2010 I received Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then my counterpart, in Athens for the first Greece-Turkey High-Level Cooperation Council. We sat down to the task of a new relationship of cooperation. That same year, we jointly organized the Mediterranean Climate Change Initiative, bringing together more than 20 Mediterranean countries to work together on dealing with climate change and, more specifically, on renewable energy.
Achieving a positive agenda requires a mature approach that is unfettered by external pressure. It calls for good preparation and national consensus
Now, seven years after the last meeting of the council, Athens is getting ready to welcome Erdogan again on December 7, for a new session. Is there any hope of rebuilding, as we did then, the relationship between the two countries in a way that will lead to a lasting peace, having resolved the issues that divide us?
Such visits are not easy nor do they offer automatic solutions. They are also controversial, drawing voices of opposition, likely driven by weakness and fear. In my experience, there is a lot to be gained from dialogue.
Our positions are fair and our red lines are familiar, but they need to be expressed succinctly and consistently. Dialogue helps in defining the real problems and avoiding fantastical conjectures fueled by public outbursts. It can help the two sides understand the other’s genuine fears and define common interests, both national and geopolitical. Sincere dialogue reveals the intentions and limits of each side. Even when a situation appears to have hit a dead end, dialogue can lead to a temporary “modus vivendi,” in the hope of a future resolution of differences in different circumstances. The issue of hydrocarbon exploitation, for example, will be of little if any importance in a few years’ time due to the mandatory transition to other energy sources.
Achieving a positive agenda requires a mature approach that is unfettered by external pressure. It calls for good preparation and national consensus. This is the only way to build a sustainable and peaceful relationship that can stand the test of time. Mutual respect between the two sides is absolutely essential.
The cessation of overflights in the Aegean over the past few months is a positive example, though it is obviously not enough.
In a speech in 2010, Erdogan noted that his country had wasted a lot of energy and hope on imaginary enemies. “Turkey spent years dealing with imaginary enemies that were a domestic and foreign construct,” instead of dedicating its energies “to the most important thing, its human dynamic, its young people, its future,” he said.
I would add that in foreign policy, it is very easy to tear progress down, but very hard to build it up in the first place.
George Papandreou was the prime minister of Greece in 2009-2011 and foreign minister in 2009-2010 and 1999-2004.
