Athens , 9 September 2010

Mr. Delavekouras: Let’s start with Foreign Minister Dimitris Droutsas’s programme. Today’s meeting with UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova will start at 13:10 and will be followed by statements to the news media.

The new Director-General of UNESCO is carrying out her first visit to our country since taking up her duties in 2009, and she will participate in the international conference being organized by UNESCO in Athens from today through 11 September.

At 17:00, Mr. Droutsas will meet with UN Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, who will be the keynote speaker at the UNESCO conference.

On Friday, Mr. Droutsas will participate in the cabinet meeting to be held in Thessaloniki, and he will then depart for Brussels, where he will participate in an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers, the “Gymnich” meeting, as we call it.

The basic subject of the meeting will be preparations for the 16 September European Council, the subject of which will be European Union cooperation with EU strategic partners. Also to be discussed is the EU’s presence in the international system and EU-Turkey relations.

On Saturday and Sunday, the political leadership of the Foreign Ministry will be in Thessaloniki within the framework of the Thessaloniki International Fair.

On Monday, Mr. Droutsas will return to Brussels for the General Affairs Council (GAC), in which Alternate Minister Xenogiannakopoulou will also participate.

The GAC agenda will focus on preparations for the 16 September European Council, as well as on preparations for the European Council slated for 28 and 29 October, which will look at EU economic policy, the EU at the G-20 Summit in Seoul on 11 and 12 November, climate change – ahead of the Cancun Summit – and transatlantic relations.

On Tuesday, 14 September, Foreign Minister Droutsas will be received by the President of the Republic, Mr. Karolos Papoulias, whom he will brief on foreign policy matters. Later that day, he will meet with the President of Omonoia, Mr. Bolanos.

A meeting of the National Council on Foreign Policy has been scheduled for 18:00 on Tuesday, 14 September, under the chairmanship of the Foreign Minister. Items on the agenda will include developments in our region, with emphasis on the Balkans, the Middle East, relations with Turkey and the Cyprus issue.

On 15 September we are holding a meeting of the political leadership of the Ministry with the diplomatic correspondents – a press conference format. We will announce the time to you.

Today, 9 September, Deputy Foreign Minister Spyros Kouvelis will attend the opening of the Kyprinos-Ivailovgrad border checkpoint, accompanying the President of the Republic, Mr. Karolos Papoulias, and Deputy Prime Minister Theodoros Pangalos. Mr. Papoulias and his Bulgarian counterpart, Mr. Giorgi Parvanov, will officiate at the opening.

At 19:00 tomorrow, Mr. Kouvelis will deliver a welcome speech at the “Routes of Culture in the Mediterranean” conference, which is being held in Thessaloniki at the amphitheatre of the Piraeus Bank Conference Center.

At 10:00 on Sunday, 12 September, Mr. Kouvelis will open the Black Sea Trade and Investment Bank’s exhibit at the TIF.

On Tuesday, 14 September, Mr. Kouvelis will meet at the Economy Ministry with the Hungarian Deputy Minister for International Relations. The subject of that meeting will be bilateral development and investment issues.

Finally, at 12:00 on Wednesday, 15 September, Mr. Kouvelis will meet with ActionAid International’s chief executive, Ms. Kerr, on the occasion of the delivery of signatures for the “1 Goal – Education for All” campaign.

I would also like to tell you that we had an important development yesterday on the matter of the UN General Assembly’s decision to discuss Kosovo. This is a very important development that moves in precisely the direction supported by Greece: the need for their to be consensus and dialogue in order for us to get to a consensual process, a joint result, that will be presented at the General Assembly.

It is important that the foundations were laid yesterday. There are still some details to be worked out, and they are being discussed in New York, but we essentially expect to have the vote by next Monday.

Let me remind you the Greece was the first country to visit the region following the advisory opinion from the ICJ. We visited the region to underscore our vision for the European perspective of the whole Western Balkan region, as well as the specific role that the EU can play in resolving the Kosovo issue.

Today we are being vindicated. Efforts and work were carried out throughout this time by Greece and its partners. I remind you of the contacts the Prime Minister had with President Tadic and with other partners. I would also like  to note that just yesterday the Foreign Minister had another talk with the Foreign Minister of Serbia, Mr. Jeremic, who is in New York.

And we see that these efforts have brought us, in the end, to a consensus solution. At the same time, we see confirmed again Serbia’s firm dedication to its European path, and we believe that this is a very basic component for enabling us to open the road for Kosovo, Serbia and the whole of our region toward the European perspective.

Greece’s position on Kosovo is well known and remains firm. And we are continuing the efforts we are making with our partners in the EU to achieve the European integration of the region.

Ms. Kourbela: Mr. Delavekouras, I would like to ask, when Mr. Erdogan came to Athens three months ago, it was agreed to open a port in Turkey for the readmission of illegal migrants. Did that happen?

My other question concerns FYROM. Information in the FYROM press has it that the FYROM government is asking that the aid it receives from the European Union be discontinued if the name “Macedonia” is not used. Is that true? Thank you.

Mr. Delavekouras: With regard to the first matter you mentioned, there has in fact been a meeting between experts, as provided for by the Greek-Turkish readmission protocol, and the team of Greek experts has visited the port of Dikili, which is slated to be activated as a sea border checkpoint for this purpose. The process is under way and is nearing completion.

As regards the second issue you raised, we, too, have seen this information in the press and we have made some contacts to confirm whether it is the case. I can’t confirm it for you. It is a matter for the competent organs of the European Commission.

I want to take this opportunity to say that, despite the negative messages received from Skopje, we are continuing the effort we are making to improve bilateral relations with our neighbouring country and, at the same time, to open the way to its European perspective.

But it is clear that this relationship must be built and stand on firm foundations. This means that our relations must be determined by the rules of good neighbourly relations, which in turn means that we need to reach a solution on the name issue. A clear solution that will open up Skopje’s European and Euroatlantic future while contributing substantially to the upgrading of Greek-FYROM bilateral relations.

Ms. Tsiblaki: I would like to ask you whether you have any information to the effect that Mr. Nimetz is leaning towards inviting Greece and Skopje to begin a new round of negotiations, and whether, on the margins of the UN General Assembly, there is any possibility of a meeting between the Greek and Skopje Prime Ministers.

Mr. Delavekouras: At this time, Mr. Nimetz has not proceeded to any invitation. There is no meeting scheduled. But it is our desire – on the opportunity of the Foreign Ministry leadership’s being in New York next week – that there be a meeting with the Secretary General’s special envoy. We think this would be very useful.

We are aware of the efforts Mr. Nimetz has made. He really has dedicated himself to this issue, and throughout this time he has made tireless efforts. But we cannot ignore that in order for us to find a way round this impasse – to reach a solution – we need good will and political will from the parties.

Greece has proven to everyone – not just to Mr. Nimetz, but to all our partners – that it has this will and is working towards this end. Our actions have even resulted in an improvement in the level of contact between the political leaderships of the two countries, but we have not yet seen the response we are expecting from our neighbouring country.

The opposite is closer to the case, and – I want to repeat this – every now and then we see hostile comments come out in the FYROM press. We will not be dragged into such a mindset. We will not answer provocations with provocations. We will do the opposite. We will continue to try so that we can move ahead.

As for the possibility of a meeting between the two Prime Ministers, nothing has been scheduled. But I can’t rule it out. As you know, there have been a number of such meetings, on the initiative of the Greek side, so another one is a distinct possibility. Of course, we will have to look at the schedules of the two Prime Ministers, as well as the possibilities that exist at that time.

Mr. Pollatos: Mr. Spokesman, can you clarify what you mean when you say “provocations from the Skopje side”? What specific provocations are you referring to?

And a second question: You say that the government is showing its good will and political will, and this is evident from the frequent contacts you pursue. If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Milososki has also proposed that Mr. Droutsas visit Skopje.

Mr. Delavekouras: This is precisely the contradiction I referred to. We have an invitation that comes on one day, and on the evening of the previous day we have an interview in which Greece is accused of all the evils of the world. We can’t move ahead like this – it isn’t logical.

The political leadership of FYROM will need to make clear whether or not they really want good relations with Greece. We want good relations, and we will continue to work in that direction.

We are determined to create a positive climate; a climate that will enable us to see progress on the name issue. But these attacks really serve no end other than causing deterioration and tension in FYROM public opinion, which makes achieving a solution even more difficult.

Mr. Loukas: A clarification, Mr. Spokesman, on the Cyprus issue, first of all – the Minister’s statements, today, if I’m not mistaken. He called on Turkey to – among other things – respond positively to proposals like the return of Famagusta to its rightful residents. Does the Minister also mean territorial issues, the return of the rightful residents of Famagusta and the return of the Famagusta territory to the Greek Cypriot side, or just the residents, under Turkish administration?

And the second question: I, too, returned from Cyprus recently, and I notice that the political leadership is very optimistic that the Greece-Cyprus-Israel axis being created following the visits of Netanyahu to Greece and Lieberman to Cyprus can play a substantial role in the resolution of the Cyprus issue, to the benefit, obviously, of the Greek Cypriots, with the help of the American-Jewish lobby in Washington. In fact, the Archbishop of Cyprus made a statement on the visit of a delegation from the Jewish lobby to Nicosia. I believe, he said, that we dragged our feet – we should have used the Jewish lobby decades ago to help with our national issue. So I want to ask whether the Greek government agrees with this appraisal and optimism, and whether the Papandreou-Netanyahu meetings took place, if for no other reason, in the hope that the Greek side’s negotiating position would be strengthened.

Mr. Delavekouras: Let me start by saying that over the last two days the Foreign Minister carried out a very important visit to the Republic of Cyprus. A visit that is strongly symbolic, because it was his first trip abroad since taking up his duties as Foreign Minister. But it also has a very substantial goal, because we are at a critical state of affairs in the Cyprus issue, with the negotiations in progress. And it was precisely on that that we needed a clear briefing, as well as good coordination with the Republic of Cyprus so that we can determine the next steps.

The meetings he had were very useful. The dialogue is always absolutely open, contact is constant. And what we see is that, although we are at a difficult juncture, President Christofias – through the proposals he has made – has essentially indicated a way out.

The proposals he has made are very substantial and very realistic. And in particular with regard to the issues of Varosia and the port of Famagusta, I want to say that this proposal can lend significant momentum to the whole negotiating process and at the same time create the conditions for Turkey’s accession perspective to gain new momentum. Because we mustn’t forget that Turkey’s accession perspective is interwoven with the resolution of the Cyprus issue.

There can be no progress in Turkey’s course towards the European Union without the resolution of the Cyprus issue. That is why the Christofias proposal lends substance to the way in which we might be able to see a possible opening of chapters, which will give new impetus to Turkey’s accession perspective.

It is a proposal that has been discussed in the past under different conditions. At that time, Turkey did not move ahead. We believe Turkey now has reason to move ahead. It has reason to respond so that we can see real steps made.

If Turkey, as it says, wants to see progress on the Cyprus issue – and its political leadership misses no opportunity to say this – it now has the opportunity to do so. It has the opportunity to respond to this substantial proposal and for us to see results.

Journalist: (off microphone)

Mr. Delavekouras: I am telling you that we must first of all see a response on the part of Turkey and whether it is willing to sit at the table so we can talk. Beyond that, I am not going to bring this discussion to a conclusion today. But we have not seen a response thus far. On the contrary, the messages we have received are negative. Proposals which are not constructive and with a negative tone, there is in essence a chasm between words and deeds.

I repeat: Turkey plays a crucial, a decisive role with the occupation troops in Cyprus, because we must not forget that the Cyprus issue is a question of invasion and occupation. So Turkey has the opportunity now to take steps which will allow negotiations to move forward, and to invest again in its own European perspective.

With regard to the issue of cooperation of Greece and Cyprus with Israel, I have said before that the intensification of our relations with Israel is incorporated within a strategic framework which we have opted for. It is a strategic choice which we will continue to work on in order to deepen relations to the mutual benefit of both countries.

At the same time, there is substantial cooperation on the part of the Republic of Cyprus with Israel. The Israeli Foreign Minister recently visited the Republic of Cyprus. There have been good contacts, as we were informed during yesterday’s visit, and we see with great satisfaction that relations on a bilateral and regional level are being developed to the benefit of peace and stability.

Our region, the region of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, is a sensitive region. This is why it is an opportunity to take steps forward towards a stronger, more intensive cooperation with our neighbours. This relationship is not competitive to anyone. I would like to stress that. It is based on its own foundations and we want to build on these foundations.

With regard to the issue of cooperation between Greek associations and Jewish associations in the U.S., this is something that already existed and it would be naturally useful if it were to be intensified in areas of mutual interest. But it is based on their own initiative – those who see that they have mutual benefits to gain from this synergy; those who see that better results are achieved, and this is true for all issues. 

Mr. Fourlis: You are essentially telling us that the Cyprus issue is becoming an even more pivotal point in Turkey’s accession course. Similarly, wouldn’t the constitutional reform, in view of Sunday’s referendum in Turkey, also constitute a pivotal point for the country’s European course? That is, will something change in your opinion if the yes or the no prevails?

Mr. Delavekouras: The referendum to be held in Turkey is Turkey’s domestic matter and this is why I do not want to comment on it. But I can clearly tell you what Greece wants, what Greece expects from Turkey.

Greece wants to face a stable neighbour, a country with strong democratic institutions and with a clear European orientation. A country which will make reforms and take swift steps towards the European Union.

And at the same time, it wants a European Union which will send a clear message to Turkey that its final destination – when all its obligations are fulfilled – is full accession.

Finally, we need to speak clearly in the relations between the EU and Turkey. Let us not hide behind clichés or stock phrases. This is the Turkey we want and this is the behaviour we expect from it.

Ms. RISTOVSKA: Regarding Mr. Milososki’s letter to Mr. Droutsas, was there or will there be a reply or perhaps given what you said we should not expect that a visit will be carried out to Skopje?

Mr. Delavekouras: There is a clear desire on our part for another visit in future and when the circumstances are ripe, but we believe that we have to be honest in our relations. You cannot be sending “best wishes” one day and say “I am waiting for you so that we strengthen our relations even further”, when the previous day you were levelling accusations against Greece. This is not consistent.

Mr. Milososki must finally decide how he sees his relations with Greece. On our part there is every good intention, but we have to be honest in order for this discussion to have a meaning.

Ms. Ristovska: And one more question arising from a report in the “Sunday Paron” weekly, which says that Mr. Nimetz has submitted a proposal, one final proposal on the name issue, to both sides and Athens has already accepted it. This has probably happened, according to the report, last July and the information comes from the European People’s Party Bureau, which had a meeting with the UN Secretary General. 

Mr. Delavekouras: I haven’t read the report that you’re talking about, but I can tell you that no proposal has been submitted by Mr. Nimetz.

Mr. Gogas: At the previous briefing you told us that the Foreign Ministry has asked for explanations from the United States about Mr. Ricker’s statements. Could you tell us if these explanations have been given and what they are.

Mr. Delavekouras: Yes, explanations have been requested from the American Embassy in Athens. We have received these explanations and we have cleared up this matter.

Mr. Meletis: Meaning?

Mr. Delavekouras: That the well-known position of the United States still stands. The United States support the negotiations between two countries held within a clearly defined framework, the UN framework.

Mr. Meletis: Mr. Ricker didn’t say that he doesn’t support the talks. He said that he supports the talks supported by the U.S. and in particular …

Mr. Delavekouras: The position of the United States, as set out by the State Department, have remained unaltered.

Journalist: So the Ricker statement is not true?

Mr. Delavekouras: I will tell you that we have asked for explanations from the U.S. side regarding this interview. The explanations requested, have been given. The U.S. stance is firm, as we know it, so the issue has been settled for us.

Mr. Gogas: Did the explanations you requested concern the UN process; that is, Mr. Nimetz’s services or the burning issues brought up by Mr. Ricker, such as for example the existence of a Macedonian identity…

Mr. Delavekouras: This is not the subject of negotiations. Anyone can say whatever they want, but this does not make it part of the negotiations. The negotiations have a clear framework. They are taking place within the United Nations, they are being held between two countries.

Journalist: (off microphone) Has the Foreign Ministry requested explanations from the State Department as to whether it accepts this alleged existence of a Macedonian identity and language?

Mr. Delavekouras: The negotiations have one specific objective. The negotiations are aimed at determining the definitive name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This is set out in a very clear manner in UN Security Council resolutions as well as in the Interim Accord. It is pointless to start an endless conversation with people who don’t even participate in negotiations or have no role in them.

Mr. Gogas: So you did not ask for explanations on the specific issues raised by Mr. Ricker on the Macedonian identity and language.

Mr. Delavekouras: We asked for explanations about the context in which these statements were made and we received the explanations we expected.

Mr. Meletis: (off microphone) So you mean that there has obviously been a change in the Greek position which we have learned just now, because until now all the proposals by Mr. Nimetz which had been accepted or rejected by the Greek side – but in any event it was discussing them – also provided for a discussion on the identity issue, what ethnicity will be entered and so on. Does that mean that we have changed our negotiating tactics?

Mr. Delavekouras: Our country’s position has in no event changed. Our country’s position has been clear and firm all this time. The subject of the negotiations, as set out in the UN Security Council resolutions and in the Interim Accord, is the determination of the definitive name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This is – and this will be – our clear position.

Mr. Meletis: So up until now, the process under Mr. Nimetz was outside the framework of the UN and the Interim Accord. You know better than me that all the proposals by Mr. Nimetz provided for an identity issue, what the ethnicity will be called and the use of the term “Macedonian” for commercial or other purposes.

Mr. Delavekouras: The outcome of the negotiations will be an agreement – we hope even tomorrow – if there is a response from the other side; that is, if Mr. Gruevski and his government finally decide that they want to move ahead with a solution. For our part, we have shown that we are ready. With regard to what you are saying, you have been referring to various proposal drafts, submitted…

Journalist: (off microphone)...

Mr. Delavekouras: Yes, there are several. Do you know that’s all of them? Do you know whether you have seen all of them? I don’t know. So you are referring to various plans that have been submitted from time to time. Some of those have been made public. Beyond that, I am not going to talk about proposals that have already been rejected and no longer exist.

I will talk about what the negotiations are and where we want to get to. We want to reach the determination of definitive name for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the framework for the solution on the table is the one proposed by Greece. Precisely the one that will produce a solution: an erga omnes geographical qualifier. This is clear. This is where we stand. There is nothing more.

Mr. Meletis: Since you’re talking about “erga omnes”, and given Greece’s well-known position, I wanted to ask, how are you going to ensure it? With a constitutional reform in Skopje or in  another manner?

Mr. Delavekouras: As I have answered in the past, we are interested in the agreement’s implementation. There is no point in returning to a process such as the one we are facing today, with continuous violations of the Interim Accord. This is why we must ensure that any agreement we reach will be implemented. If this requires a constitutional change in Skopje, then this is what has to be done. This is our position.

Ms. Kourbela: (off microphone) You talked about the resolution of the Cyprus issue, or rather about progress which will lead Cyprus to unfreeze certain negotiation chapters with Turkey and perhaps formally contribute to an emerging trend about Turkey as an associated country, rather than an EU member state.

And I am saying this because the latest developments show that Turkey has been distancing itself from the European Union. It has gained very good relations with Arab countries, and tourism from these countries to Turkey has been rising strongly. It seems, therefore, to be distancing itself – at least financially – from the European Union. Thank you.

Mr. Delavekouras: There is such a discussion at the moment. Greece’s position, clear position, is that Turkey must have a clear European orientation, which will shape the final outcome in clear terms. That is, full accession.

But this, as I told you earlier when I mentioned the clear position, means that it must comply with all its obligations vis-à-vis the European Union and any of its member states.

Beyond that, the discussion, in the way you presented it, is exactly the opposite from what is in the end in our country’s interest and in the interest of the Republic of Cyprus. The discussion about a relationship of less than full accession, a special relationship which has been described with various terms, is not in our interest. We must speak in clear terms. Half measures are of no use.

But this is why we need clear words from the European Union, too, regarding Turkey. Because Turkey – if, indeed, what its political leadership is saying stands, about EU accession being their priority – must proceed with the necessary reforms. And the European Union, for its part, must send a clear message that “yes, if this happens, then there is indeed a European future.”

Mr. Delavekouras: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.