|
|
In
late July 1999, for the first time in Greece’s modern history, there
was a debate on the possible modernization of the country’s minority
and citizenship policies. Under the impetus of Foreign Minister George
Papandreou, then considered as supporter of multiculturalism, the
public was informed that Greece was finally moving towards the
application of the internationally accepted norms for national
minorities and the recognition of the right to self-identification for
Macedonians and Turks. G. Papandreou then said:
"If
a Greek citizen feels that he belongs to some ethnic group,
international treaties allow this. And Greece is a country that
respects international agreements… No one challenges the fact that
there are [in Greece] many Muslims of Turkish origin. Of course, the
[Lausanne] treaties refer to Muslims. If the borders are not
challenged, it concerns me little if someone calls himself a Turk, a
Bulgarian or a Pomak… Whoever feels he has such a [Macedonian]
origin, Greece has nothing to fear from it and I want to stress this
is not just my thought. It is a well-established practice that
allows the integration of minorities throughout Europe, as well as
in other countries like Canada, Australia, and the USA. Such an
attitude defuses whatever problems might have existed, allows the
real blossoming of democratic institutions, as well as gives these
people the feeling that they too are citizens of this country"
("Klik," 26/7/99).
A
year later, G. Papandreou had changed his attitude:
"Our
position is that, according to the Council of Europe’s Convention,
that we have signed and will ratify in Parliament, minority is a
legal term. (...) Every country’s government has the right to
define which minority it recognizes. We recognize as minority the
Muslim minority. This does not mean that we do not acknowledge that
there are some Slav-speakers in our country. They are not a minority
in the legal sense. A minority in the legal sense has consequences
concerning its rights, e.g. schools or whatever. Secondly, we
recognize this minority as Muslim. This does not mean, however, that
there is no individual right to define oneself: ‘I have Turkish
roots, so I am a Turk’, ‘I am a Pomak’ etc. This is what the
OSCE and van der Stoel says."
This
is certainly an awkward, if not distorted, way to interpret the OSCE
documents and the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities
positions. Suffice it so say that all elected leaders of the
"Muslim minority" claim the right for the minority to be
recognized as Turkish. This is in line with reality. An EU "Euromosaic"
survey carried out among minority members registered in 1995 that 80%
of its members have a Turkish identity (vs. 10% who have a Greek
identity).
Consistent
with that position was the answer of the Greek government, via its
Spokesperson Minister for the Press and the Mass Media Dimitris Reppas,
to an appeal by the European Parliament’s "Green and European
Free Alliance" group to Prime Minister Costas Simitis, in May
2000, for the recognition of the Macedonian language and its
introduction in the education system: "We are not concerned by
such issue."
In
this year’s report, ECRI stated that "minority problems are
connected with the low level of recognition, within Greek society, of
its multicultural reality." Its recommendations included
"the need to address the situation as well as the specific
problems faced by non-ethnic Greeks, and the need to raise the
awareness among the general public of the multicultural reality of
Greek society." To this ECRI criticism, the Greek government’s
rebuttal was an almost categorical rejection. It stressed there is no
"adherence by the Greek Government to the notion of a
multicultural character of the Greek society."
How
are minorities treated in Greece? We will conclude with the following
eloquent excerpt from the Greek Ombudsman’s "Annual Report
1999:"
"Human
rights violations by the administration (…) can be codified with
the words arbitrariness-indifference-bias-impunity; they take their
most acute form when applied on vulnerable social groups [p.
18]. Often the administration arbitrarily uses public interest as
an excuse to restrict individual rights or shows illegal idleness
when there is a constitutional obligation to protect human rights.
These phenomena will not be eliminated as long as existing
disciplinary procedures remain idle. (…) The administration,
reproducing the most backward reflexes of our society, often shows
its worst face when dealing with members of minority groups [p.
70]. The pathology of human rights in our country is mainly a
problem of implementing existing constitutional and legal provisions
rather than lack thereof [p. 69]. It is common wisdom that in
the administration prevails a feeling of impunity, that in some
cases favors occasional illegal actions, or in other cases it
perpetuates a status of generalized anomy and corruption [p.70]."
|
