Welcoming the Ukrainian president
Welcoming the Ukrainian president
Why did we mess with Russia? Is it in our interest? Look at Turkey. Let's maintain neutrality.
I'm picking apart some of the stinging questions that are interfering with the dialogue on social media. As a rule, I pay attention to those who argue and ignore those who sloganize.
It is not easy to respond with a cool position when there is a momentary uproar, admiration or disgust and specific “standards”. When I am invited to a discussion, I always hasten to clarify that the position I formulate is based on many years of professional engagement, practice and knowledge of the diplomat and on the experience in the field. Positive and negative. Opinion must be based on knowledge. Difficult in a country where opinion precedes events.
The responsibility is also proportional to the critical positions entrusted to us by successive governments and ministers. It is inexplicable that “analysts” should give rise to questioning their service value and rationality. Regardless of the end of our service relationship – our term in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or in the Armed Forces – the obligation to speak responsibly does not disappear. This is the imaginary “red line” that distinguishes us from the everyday honorees liberated from the perception of the Aristotelian “measure”. How can hundreds of Russian-Ukrainians be absent today when twenty years ago Greece was flooded with so many Afghan-Pakistani scholars?
Rationality is also not easy in a public debate where the characterizations on both sides are disproportionately sharp and limited compared to our linguistic wealth. The human tragedy of the war in Ukraine has not "contributed" to the expansion of the vocabulary.
I can in good faith accept that peace could be opposed and juxtaposed to war under one condition. That is, if we agree that peace means:
• No to Russia's military invasion of the territory of neighboring Ukraine.
• No to the barbarity of the bombing of civilians, cities, hospitals, nursing homes, theaters, cultural monuments, including members of the Greek community in Mariupol.
• No to war crimes and the blatant violation of fundamental humanitarian written and unwritten rules.
If we define peace in this way, then we agree. However, if by peace we mean the sharing of responsibility between those who violate the law, the UN Charter and European agreements, and those who defend themselves “beyond altars and hearths”, then we definitely disagree. Even if we assume that our partners and allies showed “understanding”, Greece, with its history and stable, timeless choices, is only entitled to and obliged to have one stance. The current one.
Neutrality has never been our decision. We preferred Molon Lavé, “No”, resistance. Often with an unspeakable toll in blood and destruction. We honor the “glory and heroism of the Greeks” believing that it rightfully belongs to us.
“After this, Darius of the Greeks, whatever he had in mind, whether to fight him himself or to surrender, sent messengers of other orders against Greece, begging the king to grant him both land and water” (Herodotus’ Histories, Erato). Historical memory has been recorded for 2.512 years. As many times as we were offered tempting offers to offer “both land and water”, we refused. Consciously paying the heavy price.
This is why we stand with Ukraine and its struggling people today. By honoring the country and its President Volodymyr Zelensky before the Greek Parliament, we are honoring our own history.
A year ago, on 11.4.2021, “K” hosted my relevant – not coincidental – article “On the threshold of global conflict?” It concluded: “Greece dogmatically promotes internationally its commitment to international legitimacy, to the UN Charter and to the basic texts that define the European security architecture (Helsinki Final Act, Charter of Paris 1990). It is not simply a position of principle. At the same time, our national interest is promoted. Provided that these rules will apply by everyone for everyone against everyone, this axiomatic position makes our choices easier. However, they will be neither easy nor painless.”
We recall and invoke this concluding remark.
* Mr. Alexandros P. Mallias is an honorary ambassador and member of ELISME.
Source: "Kathimerini" newspaper of 3-4-2022