A Journal of Foreign Policy Issues
One of the many Nordic¯usually Swedish¯members of the Imperial Guard (the Varangians of Byzantium) seems to have merely wanted to record that he had been there, in Piraeus.
Let us hope that the many thousands of Swedish tourists are more careful today when walking around the classical monuments of ancient Greece.
The awareness of modern Greek culture in Sweden and the rest of the world was, of course, highlighted when George Seferis and Odysseus Elytis were awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1963 and 1979.
The great friend of Greece, Sture Linner, has in his memoirs reminded us of how the Greek resistance to the Italian invasion in 1940 inflicted the first defeat to the Axis Powers. And later, the same resistance against the Nazi forces obliged Hitler to postpone his attack against the Soviet Union, a development of great importance to the final outcome of the war. The occupation, however, causing widespread hunger, took a heavy toll on the Greek population. In the spring of 1942, the Allied powers asked the Swedish government to organise international aid efforts for the population. Sture Linner was among those in charge of the programme, which became the largest aid action ever undertaken by Sweden. From September 1942 to March 1945, 640,000 tons of food, clothes, medicine and vehicles were shipped to Piraeus. Approximately 3 million people, almost half of the country's population, were thereby provided with bread. This dramatic period has also been described by my friend, professor Basil Mathiopoulos, in his book December 1944.
Other, more recent, strong ties of friendship were formed between our peoples during the dark years of the military junta in Greece, when many Greek dissidents and democrats were granted asylum in Sweden. Among them were Andreas Papandreou and his family. It was in Stockholm in 1968 that Papandreou formed the Pan-Hellenic Liberation Movement (PAK), which was later transformed into today's PASOK.
Many stayed in Sweden. Today more than 25,000 people of Greek origin are Swedish citizens. Another 25,000, also with Swedish citizenship, have returned to Greece. They worked hard in our country for 20-30 years and contributed to Sweden's prosperity and culture. Bonds of friendship forged during those years endure to this day and are of great value to our bi-lateral relations. We should not forget in this context the fruitful co-operation that our Prime Ministers Olof Palme and Andreas Papandreou developed to stop the nuclear arms race with the so-called Six Nations Initiative in the mid-80s. Their "battle cry" was that non-nuclear States also have a say. Today, with India's and Pakistan's nuclear arms, it is high time to unite our forces in the struggle for a nuclear-free world.
Today, Sweden and Greece are partners in the European Union. This fact opens up possibilities which have hardly begun to be grasped.
It is therefore a pleasure to see the positive developments in the commercial relationship between our two countries. Many Swedish companies have realised the potential of the Greek market. According to the latest figures, I see that Swedish exports to Greece increased by 30% last year and by a further 25% in the first six months of 1998. This gives Sweden a certain surplus, although, on the other hand, the 500,000 Swedish tourists visiting Greece every year make an important contribution to the Greek economy.
In the European Union, Sweden and Greece share the status of being among the medium-sized members. At times, this can create common interests, especially when it comes to discussions about institutional reforms. Moreover, our respective geographical positions at the outer perimeter of the Union's territory create certain similarities in outlook, since we now have two equally important and complementary processes, the Barcelona Process for the south of Europe and the Northern Dimension for the north of Europe.
With the accession of Finland and Sweden, the EU attained a 1,300 km.-long border with the Russian Federation. Greece has a similar position, being a Mediterranean country with a long-standing involvement in the Middle East and North Africa.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the greatest challenge facing Europe, after it was divided and conflict-ridden for so long, is how best to unite and heal its wounds.
How we handle this task will be decisive for future peace and prosperity in Europe. It is a task that cannot be taken lightly. It is, and should be, pursued in all the forums available to us: the EU, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.
Although Sweden is not a member of NATO, we are net contributors to European security, not least if we look at our commitments in the Balkans. The European Union and its enlargement is the prime vehicle for the process of European unification and integration. Sweden is a warm proponent of enlargement, which can only be compared to the original community project in the 1950s. Fundamentally, it concerns consolidating the foundations for peace, security, democracy and prosperity in Europe.
The prospect of membership has already had positive effects on the handling of complicated border and minority questions. Rather than allowing themselves to be entrenched in past grievances and problems, candidate States have adopted brave, forward-looking approaches.
Enlargement cannot, however, be allowed to obstruct or slow down the deepening of co-operation within the EU. The Union is now embarking on its most ambitious, deepening project to date, the EMU. Sweden will not be among the first wave of participating countries in the EMU. The reasons for Sweden not joining at this stage are mainly of a political nature. There is clearly not enough public support in Sweden for adopting the euro in 1999. The door is, however, being kept open for us to join later. The EMU is of great importance to Sweden and the Swedish economy: we are committed to contributing to a successful euro. The decision to join in the third phase of the EMU will be the people's choice in the next few years, either through a referendum or elections. In the meantime the government will initiate a nation-wide, objective information campaign to stimulate a broad public debate on the EMU.
Today, Social Democrats are in the majority in EU countries. This fact provides us with a unique opportunity at a crucial time. It will mean that issues like employment, peace initiatives, the environment, equality between the sexes, and the rights of workers and of consumers will be at the forefront of politics.
The ideological shift in the Union became evident at the first summit in Portschach, Austria last month after the change of governments in Germany and Italy. The leaders discussed new plans for fighting unfair taxation, establishing minimum social standards, and co-ordinating economic policies. The EU leaders also hinted that they would support publicly-financed investment projects for the purpose of creating more jobs, and a more flexible interpretation of the Stability Pact, in a drive to try and reinforce budgetary discipline in the euro-zone. The need for lower interest rates and a pact for more jobs were also discussed during the summit.
What is most important now is the fight against unemployment. Today, 18 million people in the EU are jobless. This is a tragedy in itself and a long-term threat to democracy. We must not ignore the breeding ground that this provides for anti-democratic and xenophobic groups. Employment policy guidelines should be given the same weight as corresponding instruments in the economic and monetary spheres. Sweden and Greece once stood almost alone in pushing for an employment chapter in the Union Treaty. Now it has become a reality.
One of the most important future issues for the Union is the acute need for a thorough reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). For economic, trade and environmental reasons, we need a more consumer-oriented agricultural policy. In Sweden's view, a reform of the CAP is a prerequisite for enabling European agriculture to become competitive on the global market, and generate increased economic growth and employment.
These days we have seen madness, not magic, in the market place, threatening the economic security of individuals, companies and nations.
The financial unrest around the world has taught us both political and economic lessons.
The first and most important of these is that each country must make sure that its own economy is in order. Borrowing your way to prosperity is not sustainable in the long term. The foundation for the development of a country is within the country's hands. However, no nation¯be it Sweden, Greece, Germany or the US¯can act without taking the global context into consideration. The world is moving towards more, not less, integration.
Secondly, economic growth must be accompanied by social development, openness and democracy. The crises in Asia and Russia have shown us the importance of a solid economy and publicly funded social safety nets. The Union must therefore pursue a policy of high economic growth, better and more education, social responsibility, and environmental improvement.
We want to see a Europe that combines social responsibility with vital growth, this is the foundation for stability in a nation-state in the era of globalisation.
In other words, solidity and solidarity must go hand in hand.
After many years of frequent visits to Greece, I know that two unavoidable issues are, of course, Cyprus and Turkey. Sweden believes it is important for the future that Turkey should be part of the area of stability created by the EU. There is no reason to exclude Turkey from future membership of the Union. But, needless to say, the same criteria that are applied to other prospective members must also apply to Turkey.
And we can see¯as is clearly shown in the Commission's first regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession (presented on 4 November)¯that the political criteria, for the time being, have not been met in the case of Turkey. That is why we fully support the European Strategy for Turkey that the Commission presented in March this year. It will be an important tool for the development of the Union's relationship with Turkey and for the reinforcement of democracy and the protection of human rights, not least for the Kurds.
That brings us to the question of financing the EU strategy for Turkey.
I am not going to discuss the merits of various arguments for the non-release of EU funds to the Customs Union Agreement with Turkey. We have listened to and understood Greek arguments. However, I wish to say that it would be an act of political courage and of statesmanship for Greece simply to declare that the time has come to find constructive solutions and remove this obstacle. Such a step would be very helpful towards setting in motion the European strategy for Turkey, which we agree is a long-term necessity for the region, for Europe and, indeed, for Greece. Our analysis of these questions is based on our EU-solidarity with Greece.
Sweden welcomes the opening of real negotiations with Cyprus on seven chapters of the acquis communautaire already screened. We want to see these negotiations proceed undisturbed. Our expectation is that they will prove to have a catalytic effect in bringing about a solution to the Cyprus issue. It is our view that the question of Cyprus's membership should not be subject to a veto by a third power.
Naturally, we welcome the standing, open invitation from President Clerides to the Turkish Cypriot leadership and look forward to the Turkish Cypriots joining the Cypriot delegation as soon as possible.
Sweden's objective is to welcome a bi-communal, bi-zonal Cyprus into the EU. We firmly support the UN Secretary General, his Special Advisor, Mr. Cordovez, and the UN Chief of Mission, Ann Hercus, in their efforts to resume the UN-led talks on an overall settlement of the protracted Cyprus issue.
Europe is not only the European Union. This is a simple truth that does not need to be stressed in this country. However important, the process of enlargement of the Union will not, in itself, take care of some of the most acute security threats in this region. I am thinking, of course, primarily of the drawn-out conflict in the Western Balkans.
European security is indivisible. Both Sweden and Greece are taking very seriously their responsibility to help stabilise the situation in the former Yugoslavia and Albania. Sweden is making a substantial contribution of resources and manpower to Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, FYROM and now also to Kosovo.
We appreciate the role that Greece has played and is playing, particularly in coming to grips with the chaotic situation in Albania some time ago. With its military presence in Albania, Greece is contributing to rebuilding Albanian society while, at the same time, creating a climate of trust, which would have been difficult to imagine between the two countries only a few years ago. Greece has also received many refugees from the region, which raises the question of European solidarity and burden sharing.
In broader terms, we see Greece as a major factor of stability in South-Eastern Europe. This role will, of course, continue after the enlargement of the EU. When all the current candidate-states in the future have become members of the EU, the present-day, conflict-ridden Western Balkans will be completely surrounded by members of the European Union. Old EU members such as Greece, Italy and Austria, together with new ones, will have a particular role to play in shaping EU policy on the Western Balkans, with the aim of embedding it in regional security arrangements and promoting social and economic stability.
Indeed, the concept of a large regional network from the shores of the Adriatic Sea through the Aegean Sea to the Black Sea is awaiting its elaboration. Here, also, Greece will have to play an important role. There are obvious parallels to our own efforts in the Baltic Sea region, where the aim is to build security through an ever-tighter network of formal and informal co-operation links in the most diverse fields.
Jean Monnet coined the phrase that "nothing is possible without people with ideas, nothing endures without institutions". Regional co-operation and regional structures are the building blocks for peace and development. We can see this today in many parts of the world. Yesterday's enemies have become today's partners: in Southern Africa, South and Central America, the Caribbean and around the Mediterranean. South-East Asia can be added to the list as well. I am sure that one day we will see a similar development in the Balkans and the Middle East.
Given Greece and Sweden's active involvement in regional co-operation, I see many possibilities of exchanging experience between us on this subject.
The situation in Kosovo remains unstable. It is of utmost importance that both parties in the conflict act with responsibility and pursue the ongoing political negotiations in good faith. We must continue to make it absolutely clear to President Milosevic that he should discuss a constitution for an autonomous Kosovo in a constructive manner. The Kosovo-Albanians must, on their part, realise that the international community supports autonomy for the province¯not independence. And that we do not accept the use of violence from any side.
As an international community we have a responsibility to provide the people in Kosovo¯regardless of their ethnicity¯with humanitarian assistance. At the same time, we must support the building of a civil society based on local capacity and competence. Sweden supports the so-called Scandinavian House in Kosovo, which may function as a focal point for local inter-ethnic NGOs. A stable and lasting peace must be based on respect for democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law.
In the shadow of the conflict in their province of Kosovo, Serb authorities have made an unacceptable attack on their own independent media and voices. Thus, Belgrade has unfortunately distanced itself from the tradition of openness towards all kinds of media, which for many years distinguished Serbia. Indeed, during the recent years of wars and dissolution of former
Yugoslavia, Belgrade continued to prove its ad herence to European standards and practices in the area of the media. This was, until recently, one of the assets in Yugoslav policies, and it is incomprehensible that the authorities have done away with it. We must urge Serbian politicians of all persuasions to offer evidence of the Europeanism of Yugoslavia, and to restore promptly the freedom of the media in all its forms.
Yugoslavia is a natural part of Europe, and we look forward to the full integration of the Yugoslav nation into the European structures of co-operation, but this requires, in turn, full respect for European standards.
The EU came about for the purpose of providing security against a new world war. This was the first legitimacy of the Union: outer security. Now, over fifty years after World War II, the EU must find a second legitimacy: inner security. Jobs, security from crime and pollution, as well as deepened and improved democracy are areas where people must see progress to feel secure.
If we, within the European Union, cannot legitimise democracy locally and nationally, we will not be able to mobilise support for co-operation between States and/or international solidarity. And this could eventually affect the willingness of EU citizens to enlarge the Union.
This must not happen. Because, and I wish to repeat this, the EU's most important task in the next few years will be the enlargement issue. This is a historic, security policy challenge which the EU must tackle with vigour and determination.
Personally, I believe that a democratic and active European Union is a pre-condition for our welfare model to withstand the strain of an increasingly unpredictable world economy. We must, therefore, enter into discussions on how co-operation within the Union can be made more effective. To relinquish part of one's national sovereignty can, in fact, mean that one gains in influence and greater power on another level.
The EU countries account for more trade than both the USA and Japan. Together, the EU and its member-states represent the world's major donors of development assistance, consume less energy per inhabitant, and release less carbon dioxide than the US and Japan. But at the same time, we have greater unemployment than these two countries. This is the perspective from which we¯Swedes, Greeks and Europeans¯must deal with the great issues of the future for our continent, such as enlargement and the monetary union.
But the Union is not only about Europe. Never before have we had so many contacts, so much movement, communication, and co-operation between nations as we have today. This is precisely what we internationalists wanted to achieve. Nevertheless, many of us are still rather hesitant or even afraid of this "Brave New World".
Some even go so far as to say, as Professor John Gray of Oxford University in his book False Dawn - The Delusions of Global Capitalism (Granta Books, 1998), that the Anglo-American capitalist market system represents a greater threat than Soviet communism did in its time, and that it can lead to wars, ethnic conflicts, and widespread poverty.
Need I say that I don't agree? Globalisation took off as a result of necessary political decisions on deregulation. But while economies, trade, technology and information quickly became global, it takes considerably longer for democratic and political institutions to become international.
Globalisation is therefore complex and contradictory, like the face of Janus: one side is desirable and creates prosperity, the other is undesirable and exclusive. Our task, however, must quite clearly be to counteract the negative effects, but in doing so we must not make globalisation a scapegoat for our own shortcomings as governments, parties and nations. We must find national and international instruments that enable us to utilise the positive forces of globalisation¯growth and prosperity¯in a new way. If we can do that we will have the best opportunity ever to achieve national and international progress towards peace, democracy and justice. But this calls for vigorous united action between EU members and the rest of the world.
In today's world, poverty is the main threat to peace and democracy. More than a billion of our fellow men¯who are mostly women¯live in extreme poverty. It would be disastrous if the world economy acquired a permanent structural underclass as one of the side effects of development. Globalisation needs a moral compass, a political and ethical framework.
The cardinal issue in the next century, I believe, will be this: How will North and South, rich and poor be able to meet the common challenges that are born of global inequalities?
We need to help the poorest to participate in the international economy and give them access to our markets in order to trigger the development that will lift them out of poverty. This inclusion of the excluded is both a social issue, a democratic right and a security matter.
If poverty is not driven back, if the population continues to increase at its present rate, and if social inequalities continue, the World Bank predicts that in 30 years' time, twice as many people will be living in poverty compared with the present. We must not pass on this time bomb to our children and grandchildren. It is our common responsibility to defuse the threat today and create a world where everyone, not just a few, can live a life of human dignity. We all stand to gain from reversing negative developments in low-income countries, in securing stability and new markets, and in promoting humanity and peace.
There are interesting prospects for laying the foundation for a new and dynamic co-operative relationship with our 71 partner-countries in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific as we now enter into re-negotiations of the Lome Convention. The focus of these negotiations is to combat poverty and support democracy and human rights. However, the new Lome Convention has a wider aim of integrating the various types of relations between countries. It contains the full spectrum of relations ranging from politics, economy and culture, to development and trade.
Thirty years ago, the Frenchman J.J. Servant-Schreiber sounded the alarm in Europe in his book, The American Challenge. I am convinced that we face another serious challenge today.
Globalisation brings to the forefront classic political questions: democracy and human rights, sustainable social welfare systems, an equitable distribution of wealth and resources, solidarity and internationalism. Had we not had the welfare model in Western Europe, many people would have been hit even harder by the crisis. The welfare state is the essential ingredient that guarantees modern society's social cohesion and long-term survival. What we have to do now is to develop the welfare society, adapt it to the new era, and extend our vision on a global scale.
Two months ago, I visited the county of Kilkis in northern Greece¯an area where many Swedish citizens of Greek origin have resettled. It came to me, as we talked in the shade of an old tree in the plaza of Antigonia, that these people are reflections of both the old Europe and the new Europe that is emerging. "Old" because of their long lives, "new" because of their dual citizenship and their right to vote in two countries. After many years in Sweden, they have their hearts, their roots, and their interests in two cultures¯the Swedish and the Greek.
For them it is also of great interest what economic and political course Sweden will take¯many still have their relatives, children and grandchildren in Sweden and, not least, they receive their pensions from Sweden. And that is why I¯in September of this year¯did part of the Swedish general election campaign in Greece!
Let me end by telling you that this year the title "European of the Year" in Sweden was awarded to the famous Swedish author, Theodor Kallifatides, or should I say Greek, or Swedish-Greek author? His books, written in beautiful Swedish, very often tell stories from his Greek childhood. What is he¯Greek or Swede¯or does his nationality even matter? Not really. What does matter is that his personal experiences and stories from Greece are understandable and fascinating to people everywhere. Because the things that make us human¯our dreams, conflicts, fears and love¯are universal and eternal.
And that is what the new Europe is all about. Not so much about how we differ from each other, but rather what we all have in common. Not so much about borders and national pride, but how we can integrate more to make Europe a better place. A place of peace and prosperity for all, a peoples' Europe.