Greece’s New Geopolitical Environment
The geopolitical landscape of Greece has changed considerably in the past few years given not only the various geographical challenges but the emergence of a number of ‘functional’ ones as well. According to the author, Greece’s geopolitical landscape is now much wider as a result of Greece’s continued Europeanisation and the effect of globalisation. These include questions of equity and reform, concerns over terrorism and ‘homeland defence’ as well as the need for multilateral responses to global challenges. Although the verdict is still out as to whether Greece can adapt to its changing environment, the author speculates on some ‘wild cards’ that could affect the country’s geopolitical scene profoundly.
The shadow of past rivalry: limits of post-1999 dynamism in Greco-Turkish relations
This essay will enquire whether Turkey and Greece could remove their enduring controversies through confidence building measures, mediation and inter-governmental dialogues which were introduced in the post-1999 detente period. The paper will specifically focus on the recent nature of understanding between the two countries and will endeavour to answer the question of whether there is a divergence in the nature of recent cooperative arrangements from those which were concluded in the former periods of detente and each of which were disrupted by succeeding periods of either armed conflict or cold war. The paper contends that the recent nature of Greek-Turkish relations is not problem-free. Yet, the new cooperative environment facilitated by confidence building measures and growing mutual understanding could help resolve the disputes and dispel reservations in the Aegean and Cyprus which have been very central to national security considerations of both Turkey and Greece. From a security perspective, continuation of previous policies towards one another is counterproductive in the post-1999 period. Improvement of a bilateral dialogue under the EU umbrella is detrimental for the defence considerations of both Turkey and Greece.
Europe and the Middle East Peace Process: Emerging from the Sidelines
At the beginning of October 1996 in a statement issued by the Council of Ministers, the European Union expressed its concern at the outbreak of rioting in Gaza and the West Bank, which had erupted following the opening in September by Israel of the Hasmonean tunnel in the old city of Jerusalem and which had led to the deaths of 64 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers. The European Union essentially held the new Likud-led Israeli government as being responsible for the marked deterioration in the Peace Process and for the outbreak of violence which had been ‘precipitated by frustration and exasperation at the absence of any real progress in the Peace Process and [the European Union] firmly believes that the absence of such progress is the root cause of the unrest’. The statement called on the parties to return quickly to the negotiating table and reaffirmed that the search for peace in the Middle East was of vital interest to the European Union. ‘Accordingly, the European Union is ready to play an active part in efforts to recommence the negotiations, commensurate with its interests in the region, and on the basis of its major contribution to the Peace Process so far’. In response to the growing sense of crisis, ‘The Union is currently preparing a Ministerial Troika visit to the Middle East for talks with the main parties in the Peace Process.’1