JULY 1998 Monitoring

Pangalos against the Turkish Consulate. Press, «We agree with the content, we disagree with the style». Minorities in Greece and Albania double standards. European Court - double standards. Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania in the margin of today’s events. The press and the shaping of the climate as regards the «Macedonians of the Aegean». Macedonia in the margin and in quotes when the «others» are concerned. Turkey, many-faced and threatening.

Domestic minorities

The visit to Thrace of the Greek foreign Minister, Th. Pangalos, was marked by his statements on the role of «the American and the Turkish consulate authorities in Thessaloniki and Komotini» which «he accused of hypocrisy and divisive policies». He added in a sharp tone, «However, there are others in Western capitals and in the Consulates of powerful Western countries in Thessaloniki, who -maybe due to excessive conscientiousness- come here and search in our drawers, wardrobes, souls to discover violations of human rights» (ETh. 27/7). The great majority of the Greek press did not object the content, but rather, the style of the statements. «The well known burning issue of the Turkish Consulate of Komotini was raised by Th. Pangalos and we must congratulate him. Yet, shouldn’t the public be at last informed about those minority representatives (unfortunately they have even served as MPs in the past) who figure in the list of the Consulate’s secret allocations? However, Pangalos’ warnings on the activities of the Consulate are addressed also to some brainless local party cadres, who think that by making deals with the Turkish Consul under the table, they will benefit from the votes of the minority in the coming municipal elections. And then we claim that it is the Turkish propaganda to blame…» (ETh. 30/7). «That the Turkish Consulate of Komotini has been promoting for years contacts and activities ‘exceeding the limits’ is a well known fact not only by the Greek government but also by all residents of this Thracian town. Is the government of Mr. Simitis planning to do anything about it? If yes, then the recent reference of Mr. Pangalos to the Turkish Consulate is justified. If not (and most probably this is the case) then what is the meaning of a public statement on this matter?» (K. 31/7). «For example, ‘E’ knows that ‘last year the General Consulate of Thessaloniki called a meeting of the representatives of the Muslim minority of Thrace controlled by Ankara, that was to be joined by the pseudo-muftis and the self-named ‘Macedonian’ minority and also by Sidiropoulos. However, after the dynamic intervention of the Greek Foreign Ministry, the meeting did not take place» (EL. 29/7). From time to time the Greek press deals with the role of the Turkish Consulate in Komotini with skepticism, thinking that it instigates past passions between the two communities living in the area, with the aim to destabilize Western Thrace and discredit Greece internationally. Both Th. Pangalos’ statements and the comments in relevant press reports show that the rights of the minority in Thrace are not discriminated against at all. When issues are raised openly and publicly (by minority MPs, by the Turkish Consulate and by human rights organizations) pointing to the fact that the members of the minority (whom the Greek state recognizes as Muslims and not as Turks) are denied the right of self-determination or the right of electing their religious leaders. Pointing to the problems of education and bureaucratic behavior towards the Turks of Thrace, some claim that this is a coordinated, provocative, anti-Greek attempt to slander Greece, accusing it for alleged violations of human rights. In order to support this view, various war scenarios are fabricated time and again. Those usually refer to a future Turkish attack on Thrace and to the independence of the area. Comparisons of the status of the minorities on both sides of the border are also made. «Of course, it is moving that some of our politicians are sensitive to the rights of some ‘Turks’ of Thrace. However, it is shamelessly hypocritical to lump together the injustices committed by the Turks and the ‘injustices’ of the Greeks against the coexisting populations. (...) In Imbros and Tenedos and even in Istanbul the struggle is not for rights but for life itself. The blood of thousands who have been slaughtered is still moaning from the graves» (E.T. 17/7). Very few people recognize the fact that when it comes to minority issues, Greece has double standards. They give as an example the activities of the Greek Consulate in Argyrokastro. «To the extent that he (the consul) is not behaving himself, he (Pangalos) is right. Of course, let’s not attempt to draw a parallel between the Greeks of Albania and the people of Turkish origin in Thrace, as in this case the double standards approach becomes blatant» [Y. Tzanetakos (EL. 1/8)].

Illegal immigration is still one of the main concerns of a great part of Greek public opinion, but also of politicians who collect the fruit of these concerns in terms of votes. It is estimated that the legalization mainly of the Albanian immigrants, will destabilize the (problematic in one way or another) demographic equilibrium of the country by creating a future Albanian minority in Greece or by increase of the unemployment and criminality indexes: «The increase of the number of foreigners in our country together with the increase of criminality (often chargeable to the illegal aliens) and the increase of unemployment as well, create an increasing concern among the population which cannot be attributed to racist tendencies... We, Greeks, are not to blame for racism and if this was the case serious symptoms would have been manifested» [letter of E. Dambounelis (E.T. 6/7). The indirect reply to the above concerns came a month later from the journalist K. Brousalis (Eth. 4/8): «And are we, Greeks, the elect people of the earth, who can expand and migrate wherever we want, yet do not allow others to come and live in our country? Is this not racism?». Any initiatives on the Greek side trying to meet elementary rights of the Albanian immigrants on issues of education and information, are resisted with concerns and comments predicting calamities. On top of that parallels are drawn with the Greek minority in South Albania and with the actions taken by the Nano government to guarantee the minority’s rights. «Some officials are taking strange initiatives for the education of Albanians in their mother tongue in the border island of Hios, where 5 to 7% of the current population are citizens of this neighboring country! The editor of a local (Greek) newspaper is already employing Albanian journalists and has added in its logo the Albanian version of the paper’s name. The same editor is responsible for daily broadcasts in Albanian of the local radio which has also changed its name. Yet, as we learn, the majority of the Albanians of the island (which is one breadth away from the Turkish shore) are Muslims. They now ask for a mosque to be built» (...) Mr. Editor, we have already given them our friendly hand, showing hospitality and legalizing 400,000 Albanians of unknown origin and certainly not of Greek consciousness. Furthermore, let’s think of the ‘friendly hand’ extended for half a century by the Albanians to the Greek North Epirotans. Unless there are such naive persons who believe that the Muslim Albanians are reinforcing the island’s defense against the Turkish aggression...» (E.T. 19/7). «What the President of the Republic, K. Stephanopoulos, did not do during the recent visit of the Albanian President R. Meidani in Athens, was offered the day before yesterday with characteristic ease by the Greek Foreign Minister Th. Pangalos in Tirana: Commitments for the opening of Albanian schools in Greece. And one thing has to be kept in mind - the dictatorial grandfather of the present Minister, was trumpeting forth to all directions how happy he was of the ‘Albanian blood circulating in his veins’. Yet, on the other hand, is his grandson not aware of the impact his actions may have on the future consolidation of an Albanian minority which will constitute 5% of the present Greek population? (E.T. 23/7).

What is relatively comforting is that, when there is an inversion of everyday reality, the Greek papers do not miss to report it: «A man aged 19 killed an Albanian illegal migrant, father of five, for 400,000 drachmae» (ETh. 30/7).

Conscientious objectors (COs) are also met with concern and suspicion. They are related to the nationally sensitive issue of the military manning of Greece against its untrustworthy neighbors. Here are the comments of an intellectual, a University professor, who raised his voice against the alternative military service and the recognition of the right to object military service on the grounds of one’s consciousness. The fact that he is not an ordinary citizen but a specialist and a public opinion maker is very indicative of the trends running through Greek society and of its margins of tolerance. «Unfortunately, as if our ruined morale was not enough, we have legalized - I have mentioned and stressed this before - ‘the objection of consciousness’, and the young man obliged to serve his military service can invoke it in order to avoid serving in the army. This is a phenomenon of our insane condition, given the fact that we are threatened by our neighbors on a daily basis » [I. Xirotiris, professor at the University of Macedonia, (K. 31/7)].

COs and Jehovah’s Witnesses are repeatedly criticized for their individual and religious choices. They are confronted with the prejudices of a relatively big part of the readership, as shown from the correspondence pages. Maybe the prejudices of public opinion partly explain why the Greek press has such an attitude towards these two groups. Their social isolation and marginalization finds its reflection in the press. It is characteristic that although time and again Jehovah’s Witnesses have found recourse to the European Human Rights Court, very rarely they have seen reports on their vindication in the Greek Press. One of the very few such reports is the following: «They have been convicted for proselytism but they were vindicated by the Strasbourg Court» (N. 8/7). On the contrary, extended reports and emphasis was given to the decision of the European Court in the case of the Greek Cypriote woman T. Loizidou. The Court decided that the Turkish state owes her compensation because it has violated her property in Kerynia. Although the essential content of the decision was already known since April (only the agreement on the amount of compensation was pending), the whole matter was presented as if it were a new case. The political conjuncture had a role to play in this: the developments in the Cypriote issue, the relevant statements of the USA (speaking of a ‘conflict’ in Cyprus and not of an ‘invasion’), the «wait and see» position regarding the installation of the S 300 missiles and the reactions internationally. Surely it is not irrelevant that all decisions condemning Turkey are always underlined by a part, if not by the whole of the Greek press, in an effort to bring out the undemocratic profile of this country. «Compensation of 175 million to a Greek Cypriote woman for the occupation of her house by the Turks» (E.T. 30/7). «The first humiliating defeat of ‘Attila’ after 24 years» (K. 30/7). A decision of the European Court of the same day (30/7) condemning Greece over an expropriation case was not reported even in the small print of the papers. This shows the intentions behind the choice and propagation of selective news by the Greek media.

A decision condemning the Dictionary of the New Greek Language of G. Babiniotis was issued by the Greek Courts. Th. Aspasidis (a municipal councilor of Thessaloniki) had recourse in relation to the second interpretation of the entry «Bulgarian». The Court judged that the personality of the defendant was reasonably offended - and in his face the personality of other Greek Macedonians as well - as the particular interpretation makes insinuations against their national origins. The Court decision pointed out that the dictionary should not have recorded and included the said interpretation, not even as improper and insulting, because its use is not widely spread. The paradox is that the decision was based on the arguments of a representative of a human rights organization and Professor of Law who held the position that the right of freedom of expression and the right of research may be subject to limitations when it conflicts with other rights such as the right to respect the personality of individuals or groups (in an article EL (15/6)). The decision caused the reaction not only of the press but of other representatives of the intelligentsia. They spoke of «preventive censorship» in the case of the «Court decision against the Babiniotis dictionary» (Eth. 25/7). On similar grounds the Supreme Court asked for the primary decision not to be implemented, an outcome greeted by the majority of the press.

The mainly negative image created by the Greeks concerning the Albanian immigrants who live and work in Greece is to a great extent «dragging along» the image formed by the Greeks about the Albanian citizens, permanent residents of Albania. Here is a typical comment taken from a letter of protest of an individual, written against the non-professional behavior of a taxi driver. The reason for this letter was that the protesting reader forgot a professional camera in the taxi, which the taxi driver kept for himself.

«What then would our difference be from the Albanians, were we to behave in this manner towards our fellow people?» [letter of K. Papapetros (N. 22/7)].

The interest for Bulgaria is mainly limited to the economic pages. The perspective of this country recovering from the crisis, and the margins for a wider economic cooperation between Greece and Bulgaria are the axes around which the relevant newspaper articles are moving.

The name issue remains a taboo for the great majority of the Greek press, and for politicians and journalists as well. The Simitis government refrains from aggravating the climate with statements and comments, acting as if there were no problem whatsoever. Obviously this is done because of internal political reasons and because the government wants to prepare the Greek public for a future compromise. However, the Athenian press keeps the matter on the front pages, taking advantage of any possible occasion. «Unbelievable! Skopjan army men, during an international military exercise in Andravida, obliged Greek officers to change uniforms, to take off their emblems carrying the Greek flag and the word ‘GREECE’, while the Foreign Ministry remained indifferent and thus sent the message that ‘there is no problem’, when the Skopjans participated in the exercise under the name ‘Macedonia’» (E.T. 8/7).

Oftentimes such articles have some unethical references, both from the standpoint of journalism and from that of the respect of human rights (mainly the right of peoples to self-determination). More specifically, in an article of Le Monde Diplomatique about the crisis in Kosovo [republished by the Kyriakatiki Eleftherotypia (19/7)] Macedonia is translated as FYROM in full contradistinction with the original. Moreover, an asterisk refers the reader to a footnote of the Greek edition ‘excusing’ the author, Catherine Samary, for using the words "Macedonian nation" and «Macedonian» language: «Footnote of the Greek edition: The author of the article, referring to the ‘Slavomacedonians’ uses here the established terminology contained in the Constitution and in all official documents, statistics etc. of Yugoslavia from the 1950s until today». What is the message sent to the Greek reader? The disputed terminology -which is not even referred to- is used for "bureaucratic reasons" and not because almost the whole of Europe has recognized the right of the Greek neighbors to name themselves and to feel as they wish. A second typical example is the translation in English of the article of K. Iordanidis entitled: «Kosovo, Greece, Skopje». While in the Greek edition of Kathimerini (31/7), intended for internal consumption, the neighboring country is referred to with the name of its capital («Skopje»), in the English edition (1&2/8) [in the framework of the cooperation between Kathimerini and Herald Tribune] the temporary name FYROM is adopted («Kosovo and FYROM»). A second equally important difference between the two editions is that in the Greek edition the term Macedonia is put in inverted comas (FYR of «Macedonia») while in the English edition the inverted comas are deleted. And if for the first change the technician designing the lay-out and choosing the headlines (who does not need to know political science and international relations) may be blamed, the second change is undoubtedly the conscious choice of the journalist who, through the inverted comas, wishes to make clear to the Greek audience that he challenges the name and the national identity of the inhabitants of the, otherwise very nice, state. In the English edition, which informally is considered more "serious", the inverted comas are deleted, so that the foreign reader does not attribute spite to the journalist. The third related example comes from the area of human rights and more precisely from Amnesty International. In this case a comparative analysis of the English and Greek edition of the June report of the organization would be useful. Thus, in the English edition, the chapter on Greece refers to the «Macedonians» and the «Macedonian» language. In the Greek edition of the report the minority is called «Slavomacedonian» and its language «Slavomacedonian dialect». The Greek Helsinki Monitor complained to the international department of the organization, informing those responsible about the changes noted between the two texts. The official answer was that the organization adopts the terms as used in the English language (Ethnic Macedonians, Macedonian language). When EL. (18/6) referred to the report, it clearly attributed the term «Slavomacedonians» to the organization, wishing to indicate that the newspaper does not adopt this name for the bilingual population of Northern Greece. At any rate, the issue of the name and the national determination of the neighbors touches upon the nationally sensitive issue of the minority living inside the Greek territory. Through his statements (ETh 4/7), the Greek Foreign Minister implied that the Greek side could discuss and agree to the use of the term «Macedonians» as indicative of the geographical (and not the national) origins of the neighbors. «The demand that no reference should be made to the concept Macedonia differentiating this people from the other Slavic peoples, cancels them out. They are Slavs who have said, ‘We are neither Serbs, nor Bulgarians (two strong nations) because we live in one part of Macedonia. Therefore we are Macedonians.’ OK, but as a geographic determination». These statements have been received calmly by the press which is friendly towards the government. The following is a characteristic headline of ETh. (4/7): «Understanding between neighbors is necessary. This principle has an international dimension as well». On the contrary, the conservative oppositional press gave an anti-national dimension to the above position, which in any case is very far from the full recognition and acceptance of the official positions of the neighbors as to the name of their state and their national identity. «The .... right of the Skopjans to be called ‘Macedonians’ was recognized yesterday with unprecedented frivolity by the Greek Foreign Minister, Th. Pangalos. Mr. Pangalos in the same interview, apart from the arguments of the Skopjans which he generously promoted, attacked everybody else who is against Mr. Simitis» [«The right of the Skopjans to be called ‘Macedonians’» (E.T. 4/7)].

The «Ios» column in EL. (18/7) draws a parallel between two essentially comparable cases on both sides of the Greek-Macedonian border, in order to bring out the role of the press in the creation of the climate, and the existence of double standards as regards the interpretation of similar events. Two characteristic cases are pointed out: 1) That of the Macedonian citizen N. Mikhailofski of Greek origin, who wanted to change his family name from Mikhailofski to Konstandinidis through a judicial procedure. The issue did not pass unnoticed by the Greek press (mainly the conservative papers) that greeted and supported the effort, covering with reports the unfolding of this story, when its protagonist was brought to court after having been accused of beating up two Macedonian citizens, members of the nationalist party VMRO. [editor’s note: in the conservative press the message addressed to the Greek readers was that Konstandinidis was accused by the authorities precisely because he declared he was Greek]. 2) of the Greek citizen N. Stoidis who asked the Greek authorities to change his family name from Stoidis to Stoyanov. The argument he used was that he did not want his surname to indicate a Pontian origin, which he did not possess, all the more so as his great grandfather was a Bulgarian-Macedonian obliged by the Greek authorities to change his surname after 1913. In this case Stoidis was treated by the «local press and by the newspaper ‘Stohos’ as a ‘Bulgarian-Skopjan’» (EL 18/7) and more or less as a traitor denying his own country.

In the same column, on the same day, the «Ios» group criticized the Greek media for the way in which they covered the vindication by the European Human Rights Court of Greek citizens (of Macedonian origin and consciousness) who looked for recourse to it, after the Greek Courts decided to forbid them to found the Shelter of Macedonian Culture Association in Florina. The indisputable fact was that the European Court accepted their case and vindicated them. Its decision (July 10) not only acknowledges that Article 11 (on the freedom of association) of the European Convention was violated but also obliges the Greek authorities to pay to the defendants the sum of 4 million drachmae. However, press reports following the decision formed the wrong impression that the defendants had not been vindicated. «Ios» refers to the following indicative examples: «13/7/98 Vradini: ‘The European Court clarifies: Macedonia is Greek’. 13/7/98 Athinaiki: ‘The European Court ruled in favor of Greece’». Initially the news was reported correctly, a fact which means that there is a conscious and purposive alteration aiming at misinforming the Greek audience: «Eurocourt: Greece is condemned in the case of the ‘Macedonians’» (Eth. 11/7). «Condemnation for the non legalization of the association of ‘Macedonian Culture’» (EL. 11/7). «Condemnation by the Eurocourt» (K. 11/7).

An especially significant role was played by the Greek media as to the climate created before and after the meeting organized in both Greece and Macedonia by the Aegean Macedonians Organization. Since the very beginning of the meeting in Skopje, the Greek press started dealing with the matter, preparing the Greek readers for the meeting designed to take place on Greek territory. The latter had been authorized by the Deputy Foreign Minister, G. Papandreou. The danger-mongering comments were the rule, rather than the exception: «The Children of the Aegean Organization, with the support of the hawks of ‘progress’, again raises the issue of a Macedonian minority in Greece and sharpens its knives» (EL. 6/7). «The ‘Pondiki’ paper makes the following comment: ‘The people of Ouranio Toxo, the pro-Skopjan fellows of Pasois, Voskopoulos and others, who are active in Western Macedonia and Pella (and are unsuccessful, if we have to be correct) and the fanatics of the Iliden Organization of Bulgaria’s Macedonians, who wake up and sleep with the vision of Macedonia extending as far as Larisa, took the initiative to mobilize the ‘Macedonians of Albania and Yugoslavia’ for the ‘promotion of their national and other human rights’. Really, what are the ‘national rights’ claimed by Ouranio Toxo and the ‘Macedonians of the surrounding countries’? Is it maybe the demand for a ‘Greater Macedonia’?» (EL. 17/7). «Skopjans envisioning the annexation of Greek territories ... (...) During the meeting, the idea of a ‘Greater Macedonia’ was heard again, and all the more so by the mouth of the man presenting himself as the Archbishop of the neighboring country, Mikhail. ‘We pray’, he said, ‘for a better future, and for the day where no borders will divide... Macedonians! K. Gligorov himself, together with foreign diplomats, participated in part of the meeting» (N. 17/7).

The President of Macedonia, K. Gligorov made the following statement on Wednesday (15/7), but it was published in EL. several days later (Saturday 18/7), at a date which was very close to the starting of a similar meeting in Greece. «None of us has the right to be indifferent about the Macedonian name, the Macedonian language, the Macedonian territory and the Macedonian ethnic minority». The headline of the article was more than indicative: «Fiery Gligorov». At the same time, a series of public statements, like the statement of the former Minister of Public Order and well known "fighter for Macedonia", S. Papathemelis «The completion of the recent meeting of activists with the declared aim of mutilating Greece’s integrity inside the Greek territory is the culmination of the anti-Greek hysteria of the neighbors». «He [S. Papathemelis] proposed that individuals known for their anti-Greek activities must immediately be banned from entering into Greece, that all public gathering of those who manage to enter must be banned and that sanctions must be imposed in case of violation» (N. 17/7). The following statement of New Democracy MP, E. Haitidis «...sounding the alarm [E. Haitidis] against the descent of 10,000 bulgarophone extremists planning to organize provocative meetings in Greece and to ‘manifest their decision to liberate Macedonia from the Greek conquerors’» (E.T. 19/7) also aggravates the climate still further, despite the explicit effort of the government to keep a low profile. This effort is criticized by the opposition press, which draws the sword against the «government’s views on good neighborhood». «Views that are at least naive, if not questionable, and succeed in nothing less but encouraging the Skopjan propaganda and the plans of foreign forces to destabilize Macedonia» (E.T. 19/7). E.T, in particular, published spiteful comments on the events, using rather harsh expressions. «A Skopjan fiesta of hatred against our Macedonia!» (E.T. 19/7). Personal characterizations and attacks were also used: «(...) father Tsarknias, who now lives permanently in Skopje, plays a leading role in the religious scene of the schismatic Church of the tiny state. He very often appears in religious feasts near President Gligorov. However, what is most striking is that in recent months not only does he go in and out of our country freely (one wonders why he has not yet been deprived of his citizenship), but he organizes from within, with the money of Skopjan immigrants, the lousy propaganda claiming that Greece oppresses the alleged ‘Macedonian minority’». The same newspaper attempted to downgrade the impact and the importance of the meeting speaking of a «Skopjan fiasco in Edessa» (E.T. 20/7) and of a «block against the fiesta of hatred» (E.T. 20/7), proudly referring to the restrictions imposed against the entrance of Macedonians into Greece. These restrictions were applied after the mobilization of E.T.’s journalists and of the New Democracy party. One would expect that after the successful intervention of the paper and of the main opposition party and after the so-called "fiasco", there would be no reason for danger-mongering comments. However, on the following day E.T. referred to the issue in the same tone: «The provocative meeting of the Skopjans in Edessa and Florina has caused the indignation of the residents. The residents are concerned, yet the official state takes no interest in the case. What worries the people in Northern Greece more, and this is not the only thing that worries them, are the relations between Ouranio Toxo and the Turkish Minority Human Rights Movement. An explosive synthesis is attempted which might cause very serious problems for Greece» (E.T. 21/7).

We should also note that, a few days after what happened in Northern Greece, T. Diamandis, a journalist of EL. quoted from the speech of the representative of the organization of the Aegean Macedonians, A Popovski, (in Turnovo, Macedonia) and included in his report the part stressing the need for international pressure to be exerted on Greece for the country to respect the rights of the Macedonian minority. The paper failed, however, to mark down his advice to all Macedonians living in the countries around Macedonia to act as good and lawful citizens of these countries (EL. 28/7).

There are very few exceptions of reports approaching the nucleus of the problems between the two countries with soundness and temper. Amongst them, the report from Florina of K. Laskarelias (EL. 20/7) and the comments of R. Someritis (V. 2/8). Eleftherotypia and Exousia [the latter is not included in the present survey of the Greek press] are the only papers which did not confine themselves to a coverage of the meeting in Northern Greece from afar, but sent their reporters to the area. K. Laskarelias, in full contrast to T. Diamandis, did not cover the matter based on information and estimations coming from people of the Greek secret services. Instead, he wrote: «In Meliti of Florina, the uncontrolled situation predicted by many people and representatives of the authorities, was nowhere to be found». Moreover, he avoided danger-mongering and indirectly criticized all those who created a climate of tension, defying even the Deputy Foreign Minister G. Papandreou: «G. Papandreou has been exposed! He had assured that the lists preventing the entrance of Skopjans into the country for the commemoration, organized by Ouranio Toxo in Florina, on the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the ‘exodus’ of the children of the fugitives would not be used. Still, 46 of the 130 persons who attempted to come in were held at the borders with Skopje. The assurances of the deputy foreign Minister were given in writing on 14/7, as a reply to the demand of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. At the border, however, those who tried to enter Greece with Canadian, Australian and Skopjan passports were stopped by the authorities». R. Someritis in V (2/8) also dared raising the issue in a way which is very distinct from the well known analyses and commentaries: «The implications of the Civil War have been lifted for everybody else except for them. The relevant Law of PASOK, is perhaps one of the very few laws of a democratic country that divide peoples and rights according to their ethnic origin. As far as repatriation is concerned, it explicitly refers to Greeks of origin and not to Greek citizens. The aim of this Law was to prevent a numerically considerable Slavomacedonian minority from appearing ever again. If this is not national cleansing, then what is it? (...) The expected visit of the Slavomacedonians in their Greek fatherland, agreed upon with the authorities, did not create problems despite the hysteric predictions of all the super-patriots. Similarly, the conference organized by Greek Slavomacedonian groups parallel to the visit, did not create problems. On the other hand, the statements of K. Gligorov referring to ‘Macedonians of the Aegean’, ‘Macedonians of Pirin’ and ‘Macedonians of Albania’ whom Skopje should take care of, are disturbing supposedly they were correctly reported and not, as usually, eclectically distorted. Because these statements -if they were formulated as we read them here- vindicate all those who have unredeemed claims» (V. 2/8). These sound exceptions include the following comment: «What impressed the Greeks who participated in the meeting of Skopje on Kosovo was the spectacular turn of the most nationalistic elements towards Greece, when the leader of the VMRO, Mr. Georgievski, spoke of Greece as the ‘main prop’ of Skopje, because the only people who invest in Skopje are Greek businessmen whose activities have resulted in the creation of 2,000 jobs» (K. 31/7).

Rumania, just like Bulgaria, is of interest more from an economic standpoint and less from a sociopolitical one. In this case also what is investigated, is the scope for the "infiltration" of Greek enterprises into the economy of the country, and in general the scope of cooperation between the two countries.

Serbia and the Serbs

As was to be expected, the crisis in Kosovo monopolized the interest of the Greek press this month as well. Papers have daily reports on the developments in Kosovo. Compared to the past, the analyses and the estimates of the events in Kosovo are more accurate and objective. To a certain extent this is due to the more balanced foreign policy of the Simitis government. «The acquaintance with the cultural heritage of the Serbs in Kosovo helps one understand the fervor with which the Serb nation raises its claims in the area. However, historical roots and cultural tradition are not sufficient to deal today with the thorny issue of Kosovo. And in no case do they justify the violation of human rights and the crude, and the often inhuman behavior of the Serb authorities against the Albanians» (K. 3/7). For the conservative press, the Serbs, as Orthodox Christians and traditional allies, still remain the only support of Greece in the Balkan peninsula and the most reliable force among all the other peoples in the wider area. «In case of a Greek-Turkish conflict, Greece will have no strategic depth whatsoever, nor some place to send its refugees. On whom can Greece rely? On Bulgaria, Albania, Skopje or on Israel? Only on Serbia. (...) Greece must be very cautious against the attempt, which is under way, to distant the country from Serbia. This is a national mistake» (E.T. 12/7). The attitude towards the crisis in Kosovo is one of the permanent fields of criticism against the government. It is estimated that on the one hand the government opens the ‘Aeolian windbags’ for a future independence of Thrace and on the other, it condemns the Greeks of South Albania. «Mr. Tsohatzopoulos seeks the formation... of a Rugova government in the framework of a very broad autonomy of the Albanian speaking population of Kosovo. Thus Greece shows it has given up the relevant demand for the North-Epirotans and maybe the Minister of Defense is preparing something in Thrace. Even worse, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Pangalos, gives up almost daily the name ‘Macedonia’ to Skopje, thus revealing the reasons behind the continued political harassment, behind the prosecution of our paper in the Courts» (E.T. 5/7). In this light, the Simitis government is criticized for its (slavish) siding with the American interests, as its changed position is debited to American pressures wishing to achieve the complete isolation of S. Milosevic and the break-up of Serbia in the framework of the American policy of "divide and rule": «However, it seems that in the American bill, Belgrade has not been sufficiently trimmed! Consequently, while some time ago the Americans assured that they only supported the broad autonomy of Kosovo, now they spread whispers about its independence (maybe with Serbia keeping the historic areas). And suddenly they are flirting with the Kosovo Albanians’ Liberation Army, whose arms maybe they themselves have supplied» (N. 6/7). «Recently, this superpower has started inciting troubles in our neighboring Kosovo, trying to destabilize the situation in the area and set foot in Yugoslavia, as it resents the fact that until now it has proved unable to bring Milosevic down» (E.T. 20/7).

For the Greeks and the Greek press, Turkey remains a country with many internal contradictions and problems of instability, prisoner of its Ottoman past and of the dominance of its generals. The tension in Greek-Turkish relations is entirely charged on the Turkish side, presented as the most intransigent, unreliable and imperialist country of the Balkans, a sworn enemy of Greece and of the democratic tradition which Greece spread throughout the world and mainly throughout Europe. Turkey’s "resume" also includes characterizations that Turkey is an "allegedly" European and democratic country, because in practice respect of human rights is the exception and not the rule. «The knife of destruction seeks nothing else but the transformation of the Turkish state to a state cleansed of minorities, dissidents, intruders and ‘terrorists’. The great truth is also neglected - that the pure Turkish element is the minority oppressing the large majorities coexisting with it. The great patient of the last two centuries, as Turkey is called, survives and dances on a rope between rowdyism and regular slavish hand-kissing, due to the insecurity and the uncertainty pervading the developed Western countries as to the prevalence and the spheres of influence which will emerge in an eventual division or break up of this state» [letter of G. Kanatsellis (K. 4/7)]. «The strengthening of the Islamic element proves how ridiculous the strategic plan of the USA and of those yielding to it is. According to this plan, the more the European ‘profile’ of Turkey and the more it dominates the Balkans, the more the influence of Islam in the neighboring country is restricted. The Islamic parties owe their political rise to the permanent social crisis caused by the Turkish establishment and its choices» (E.T. 4/7).

The conservative press claims that Greece has to avoid any kind of conciliatory spirit and any kind of dialogue with the Turks (with the excuse that this is a trap which could lead to a sell out of the country’s sovereignty), while it must do exactly the opposite, i.e. strengthen the ties with peoples which are enemies of Turkey such as the Kurds, by following a nationally proud, intransigent and aggressive policy. «A hope for the Greeks is the hopeless struggle of the Kurds. If we too start a systematic, methodical, diplomatic and propagandist struggle against the Turks, then our struggles will also be a hope for the hopeless Kurds and for all the humiliated peoples of Turkey. And Alexandroupoli will be saved, if the Turks hear that we set as our target Istanbul or at least Adrianoupoli» (E.T. 17/7).

In Greece, even the damages caused by arsons are blamed on the Turks. Obviously this is so because of their expediency -to ‘give a blow’ to Greek tourism- and because of their inferiority complex. «What are the possibilities? Most probably it is the hand of Attila, as was proven to be the case in the past. Least probably we have to do with alien arsonists, with those who have come to harm Greece» (E.T. 6/7). One of the main negative stereotypes which the Greeks have about the Turks, is that Turks are jealous of Greece, of its beauties and of the Greeks enjoying them, and that they recall the years of the Ottoman Empire.

Still, many are those who recognize how obsessed Greeks are against the "bad" Turks. This stand is attributed to the spreading of national myths and stereotypes through school curricula but also through the media (both electronic and written): «A recent opinion poll published in a Sunday paper, reveals that more than 8 in 10 Greeks are concerned that there might be a ‘hot incident’ with Turkey. This concern which, of course, does not stand any critical analysis, was surely created by our own cries, by our own mania to paint the Turks with the colors we think they should have. By our childish obsession to see the Turks under the light of the books of our primary school» (K. 15/7). «In reality we know very few things about the neighbors. Already since the years of primary school we are used to prejudices and, of course, to ignorance, which in our adult life leads to the scientifically unacceptable fallibility of speaking and acting without knowing» (N. 7/7).