Athens, 2 March 2010

Journalist: During his visit to the region, UN Special Representative Matthew Nimetz expressed greater optimism in Skopje than in Athens. However, he said that the trip was useful to him. What exactly is the Greek government’s position on the meeting with Nimetz, beyond the official statement that the negotiations are being carried out on the name alone?

Mr. Droutsas: We are handing the negotiations with Mr. Nimetz within the framework of building good neighbourly relations with your country. Neither optimism nor pessimism will get us anywhere. What we need is realism. The meeting we had with Mr. Nimetz was very good. And the axis on which it was based was realism. We have to handle a situation with specific givens. Our countries are neighbours, and we want them to become allies and partners in NATO and the EU. But for this to happen, they have to have good neighbourly relations. So the solution of the name issue is imperative. So we have to sit down responsibly, in good faith and in a constructive spirit and seek a solution. We have to build the confidence that will enable us to move ahead together. A solution that will free up the potential for cooperation that obviously exists between our two countries. Every problem has a solution. There just needs to be will.

Journalist: Your government thinks that we should negotiate just about the name of the country, and that with the so-called identity issues, Prime Minister Gruevski is blocking the process, while the well-known fact is that all previous sets of ideas or proposals by Mr. Nimetz included points about the way of using the words “Macedonia” and “Macedonian”, as well as suggestions about the UN identity of the country and points about language and nationality. Can we expect other issues to arise later?

Mr. Droutsas: The negotiation process is confidential. We cannot and must not negotiate via the news media. That would only weigh down the process. The basis on which Greece is discussing this is well known, moreover. There are UN Security Council resolutions, there is the Interim Accord, which calls for a solution on the name of your country. It is on this that we have to agree. It is on this that we have to focus our efforts, and that is what Greece has been trying to do for sixteen years now. The constant raising of all kinds of obstacles undermines our reaching a solution. And this isn’t something that just we are saying; many of our international collocutors say the same thing. Mr. Gruevski’s choice to make the negotiations into an existential issue inevitably leads to an impasse and the perpetuation of the dispute.

Journalist: What about the scope of use, if we bear in mind the fact that more than 120 countries worldwide have recognized the constitutional name?

Mr. Droutsas: Greece’s position is based on reason and realism. We are talking about a name with a geographical qualifier, for use in relation to everyone, erga omnes. Macedonia is a large geographical area. It includes parts of Greece, Bulgaria and your country. This has to be stipulated by the name. We cannot have one part of the region speaking for the whole region. This position is just, correct and reflects the reality of the situation. As for scope of use, at some point we have to stop kidding ourselves. Anything less than the general implementation of the name that is agreed upon will perpetuate the current situation. What we would like – as good neighbours – is for us to find a definitive solution. Otherwise, this will continue to cause friction in our relations. You are not neighbours with the countries of the Pacific or the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America. You are neighbours with Greece. And we – you and we – need to be good neighbours to each other. And we can do this, provided – as I said – there is the requisite will.

Journalist: Greece has already accused the government in Skopje of not negotiating, and called upon it to negotiate. What do you think we have been doing up until now?

Mr. Droutsas: Ahead of the meeting with Mr. Nimetz, I reread the minutes of the talks from when they began. The truth is that your country’s positions, then and now, are the same. The Greek negotiator, Mr. Vassilakis, might just as well have copied the 1995 minutes as written new ones. In contrast, Greece’s position has changed. In the Hellenic Parliament – most of the parties – we made a difficult decision. We did it because we want to have good relations with our neighbours. Because we want to find a solution. Now, you have to move ahead. You have to come towards us to meet us half way.

I think that the “archaizing” policy – as the policy of the current government of your country is called – does not help towards a sincere effort to resolve the issue. In fact, beyond being a direct provocation to Greece – the history and sensibilities of the Greek people – it invalidates the policy, with the result that you are moved away from Europe.

Journalist: Following the most recent meeting of the two negotiators with Mr. Nimetz, a list of eight points was made public. Does your side have such a list of requests?

Mr. Droutsas: Greece never made such a list. And I honestly wonder whose interests are served by such an action as the publication of a supposed list or the leaking of other supposed information to the news media. It certainly doesn’t serve to create the necessary trust between us or the sincere effort to achieve a solution.

Journalist: How do you see and imagine the negotiations in the future? Do you think there can be negotiations if you insist on your red line and nothing else, nothing less? Can we talk about negotiations while insisting on red lines?

Mr. Droutsas: In order to help the negotiations along, Greece made a substantial shift in its position. In reality, how many red lines does the government in Skopje have? It won’t discuss the one thing, the other thing is non-negotiable, and every so often it calls a referendum, all the while systematically portraying Greece in dark colours to the public opinion of its country in order to predetermine the outcome of the referendum. I want you to consider this: If we did the same, when do you think your country would get into NATO and the EU? We all have to abandon the illusion that time is working in favour of one side or the other. Perpetuation of this dispute is detrimental to our common future.

Journalist: Where do you see the solution? More exactly, a win-win solution?

Mr. Droutsas: I said this earlier. A name with a geographical qualifier, in relation to everyone – erga omnes. Sixteen years of negotiations have shown the limits of each side. Now it is a matter of a political decision to take a step forward. A solution without winners or losers. A name that you will be proud to use and that will reflect reality. A name that will enable us – at long last – to address the things we have in common. And in such difficult times, it is a mistake to raise obstacles to our cooperation.

Journalist: How useful are the direct contacts between the two countries, given that from them – to date – there have been no results? And what can the two sides achieve besides a better climate?

Mr. Droutsas: Direct contact is very important. That is why Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou immediately pursued a meeting with Nikola Gruevski. So that they could get to know one another, “break the ice”, and reduce the distance that separates us. I will tell you something that is not very widely known: After the elections in 2004, when we became the opposition party, we took stock of all the meetings that had been held while George Papandreou was Foreign Minister. Do you know whom we had the most meetings with? With your country’s government. And at that time we had drawn close to a solution. That is what we want to do again. And we can, as long as our collocutor has the same constructive approach.

Journalist: Is it feasible for there to be a solution during the Spanish Presidency, because it is obvious that no progress has been made, while Mr. Nimetz reconfirmed that there are differences between the two sides.

Mr. Droutsas: If there is the necessary political will, we can even find a solution tomorrow. We are not inventing the wheel. We have been discussing the issue for sixteen years. Each side’s limits are clear. And the outline of the solution is fixed. What is needed is political will. And Greece has it.

Journalist: What role can the EU play? Should it perhaps get more involved in the process, given that all of the Europeans admit that the issue is not just bilateral, but regional and international?

Mr. Droutsas: It was always an international and regional issue, however hard certain parties tried to limit it to a bilateral framework. After all, our talks are based on Security Council resolutions. The UN process will give us the solution, and it is that process that we need to invest in. Too many cooks spoil the broth. The European Union is an objective. The most important objective for your country and the future of your people. Greece wants you to achieve that objective. In both NATO and the EU, everyone wants to see you come closer to us. That is why we have to invest in the UN negotiation process and work towards a speedy solution.

In particular with regard to your European course, the decision to open your country’s accession negotiations with the EU will be a political decision that will be taken when we resolve the name issue. But then the really difficult part will start. In the accession negotiations, each member state promotes its national interests. At that stage, you will need sincere and good friends. And Greece will be that good and sincere friend who will help you to move ahead quickly with the negotiations and join the European family. But first we have to find a solution.

Journalist: Might the current economic crisis in Greece prevent the Greek government from entering more substantial negotiations on the name and taking a bolder decision?

Mr. Droutsas: Something unpleasant occurred a few days ago. A VMRO-DPMNE MP insulted the Greek MEPs who were visiting your country, telling them – in short – that Europe should blackmail Greece due to the latter’s weakness resulting from the economic crisis. It is obvious that this MP does not know how the European Union works; what a community of solidarity means, or – allow me to stress this – what hospitality means.

Greece is currently making a huge effort, and it has all of its partners at its side. But this has nothing to do with our efforts to achieve a solution. We will always extend a hand of friendship. For us, respecting everyone – and particularly our neighbours – is a self-evident principle. As for whether we can proceed to a solution today, our answer is yes, immediately.

Journalist: How reasonable and sincere is the Greek initiative for the accession of the Western Balkans to the EU in 2014, bearing in mind Greece’s blocking fYROM in Bucharest, in 2008, and last year in Brussels?

Mr. Droutsas: I don’t want to make false impressions or leave your readers with the wrong picture, so we have to say that the NATO and EU decisions were taken with the consent and support of all of the member states, unanimously.

Your country has a top spot in Agenda 2014, Greece’s new initiative for the European accession perspectives of the countries of the Western Balkans. You can become the vanguard, the guide and example for the others. After all, let’s not forget that a previous Greek initiative – the Thessaloniki Agenda of 2003 – is what established your country’s European perspective. We put forward these initiatives because supporting the European perspective of the Western Balkans is a position of principle for us. Don’t question the sincerity of our intentions. Instead, use the opportunity opening up before you. Greece is extending a sincere hand of friendship and cooperation to you.

Journalist: Why did you refuse to visit Skopje, even as the Chairmanship of the OSCE?

Mr. Droutsas: I didn’t refuse to visit Skopje. I wanted to, and I still do. And I plan to do so. But one has to feel welcome, and unfortunately, for the time being, we are receiving conflicting messages. Our message is firmly positive. But we need your government to respond in kind. It is not reasonable for your government to propose friendship in the morning, and then in the evening comment negatively on Greece and present Greece – particularly to public opinion in your country – as supposedly being hostile to you. We are waiting for a clearer message. And a message that reflects the truth. I hope that our approach will gradually be perceived by your government. I hope that we will be able to visit soon, and I am sure that that will strengthen our efforts at the UN.

I want to close by stressing that Greece is not an adversary. Greece can be your closest friend.