THESSALY

There is a need for modernization of the European Union’s social model.
Interview with Soterios Letsios.	02.02.2003

The priorities of the Greek Presidency respond to the call for highlighting the international role, as well as the social profile of the EU. This is emphasized by the MEP of PASOK, Mrs. Anna Karamanou, who adds that there is a need for the modernization of the Union’s social model. She expresses her concerns about decisions related to women and the promotion of gender equality. She points out that Europe will be judged by its ability to present youthful ideas and alternative solutions to contemporary problems. She states that this is not the first time she has supported the lifting of the monastic ban on Mount Athos, adding that she receives many messages of support for this stance. “I have enough courage to challenge even taboo issues, such as the monastic ban,” she emphasizes. She expresses the belief that, slowly but steadily, the foundations are being laid for the complete separation of Church and State.

• For many, taking over the current Presidency of the European Union is the most critical for the future of Europe. What should Greece do to meet the demands of the European peoples?

The fourth Greek Presidency indeed comes at a critical moment for the European Union and for the country. It begins in the shadow of an impending war. However, I believe that the priorities of the Presidency fully respond to the demand of European citizens for the enhancement of the international role, as well as the social profile of the Union. The formalization of the largest enlargement in the history of the United Europe, which seems to be leading to the resolution of the Cyprus issue, is undoubtedly the great challenge of the current circumstances. Greece will be at the helm of the Union when, on April 16, the accession treaties of the 10 new members will be signed under the shadow of the Acropolis.

However, I would like to focus more on the modernization of the social model, which is being attempted through the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Indeed, there is an urgent need to strengthen the participation of women in the labor market, combat human trafficking, establish a common asylum and migration policy, develop common principles, and integrate legal immigrants into the societies of the Member States. However, I am particularly concerned about the direction the discussion on the institutional reform of the Union is taking, which will be completed during the Greek Presidency. In the new Constitution of the Union, some are attempting to exclude the commitments already secured by all Treaties for the promotion of gender equality. I fear that if these views prevail, it will be an extremely negative development for the women of Europe, but also for the protection of human rights within the Union. I hope that the specific proposals I made to the President of the Assembly for the future of Europe, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities of the European Parliament, will be heard.

The only point on which I have a slight objection is the emphasis your question places on the critical nature of this particular presidency. We should not forget that in the past, Greece has been at the helm of the Union during difficult times, and I believe it responded admirably to its role. Therefore, I do not believe in unique opportunities and challenges. I believe that, this time as well, the Greek Presidency will make a significant contribution to the process of European integration.

• A few days ago, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, R. Rumsfeld, spoke of a “geriatric Europe” that is unable to keep up with developments. Are we facing – as many have assessed – the emergence of the most serious crisis in relations between Europe and the U.S. since World War II?

I believe we are indeed beginning to live in the post-Cold War era. As long as the Cold War lasted, the differentiation of an ally from the official positions of the alliance it had joined was practically unthinkable. Today, the fear of the enemy, the centripetal force that ensured this unity, has disappeared. Thus, the countries of Europe are free to express their reservations about actions they disagree with, and they have begun to raise their voices. Of course, this does not sit well with the Americans. I believe it will be a significant achievement for a united Europe to articulate an independent political voice in the international arena through a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Unfortunately, at present, despite the positive steps that have been taken, such as the appointment of Mr. Solana as High Representative, the prospect of the CFSP does not seem very close, especially after the differences of opinion that emerged regarding the potential war against Iraq.

As for “geriatric Europe,” I disagree with the spirit of Mr. Rumsfeld’s statement. The countries that are opposed to the intervention in Iraq are countries with extensive experience in crisis management and in shaping foreign policy. On the contrary, the interventionist tactics followed by the U.S. in recent years have not brought the peace they claim to seek, but rather have caused pain and suffering to thousands of innocent people, mostly women and children. Their aggressive policy is naturally subject to criticism. In any case, the old continent will be judged by its ability to present youthful ideas and alternative solutions to contemporary problems. Above all, it will be judged by its capacity to mediate in the resolution of any differences through peaceful means, promoting a culture of peace in contrast to the American model of violence.

• Another more serious issue that is currently in the spotlight is the discussion about whether or not to maintain the monastic ban on Mount Athos. Does your request for the lifting of the ban have supporters in Greece?

This is not the first time I have supported the lifting of the monastic ban on Mount Athos. I think it would be interesting for you to read an earlier letter I wrote to Archbishop Christodoulos, in which, among other things, the issue of the ban is raised. Every time this topic gains public attention, a storm of reactions is stirred up. However, I also receive many messages of support from people who believe that there are no issues or traditions that should be placed above human rights, people who agree with me that, as our society and its values evolve, such fundamental issues should be reconsidered in the context of a reasoned dialogue. The problem is that these people do not find a platform from which to express their views. Many who have access to the media are unwilling to take on the cost of questioning a regime or a taboo issue. I understand their stance. I simply have enough courage to challenge even taboo issues, such as the monastic ban, which represents an unacceptable discrimination against women.

• Are there today the necessary political consensuses in Greek society that would create the right climate leading to the separation of Church and State?

First, we need to define what kind of separation we are talking about. To a large extent, there is already a separation between Church and State. Greece is not a theocratic state, decisions are made by the government. There are simply some outstanding issues regarding the distribution of roles in certain matters that still need to be settled. Therefore, I believe that, slowly but steadily, the foundations are being laid for the full separation of Church and State. The Church is an institution that has traditionally been linked to the Greek nation, has contributed to Greek history, and naturally wields significant influence in Greek society. However, as our society evolves, the rule of law becomes stronger. I consider the case of removing the religious affiliation from identity cards to be extremely important. In this case, the state succeeded in securing its exclusive right to decide what information it needs to know about its citizens. On this issue, the Church was defeated both in the European Court of Human Rights, to which it appealed, and in the conscience of most Greeks. Therefore, I believe we are on the right track.

• Based on what is happening on the Greek political scene, how do you assess the progress of the government’s work? The Prime Minister seems to be dissatisfied with the performance of key government officials…

I do not share your view. My experience from the European Parliament is very different. For example, in the recent presentation of the priorities of the Greek Presidency, the Greek ministers left the best impressions because they showed they have skills, persuasion, and they deliver results. The problems that are appearing internally, I think, are related to the fact that the current government is in the midst of an extremely difficult four-year term, during which many historically significant challenges have been undertaken (the EMU, the Presidency of the European Union, the Olympic Games, the effort to improve citizens’ daily lives). At the same time, according to a basic principle of marketing, people are constantly calling for change, placing their hopes in the “new.” However, at the critical moment, I believe they will make a rational judgment and prefer the one they see as more reliable and capable of governing.