From: gavrila@imhfhp16.epfl.ch (Spyros Gavrilakis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Greece and the EC
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:05:42 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <1993Jan1.071804.17460@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, g
d8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:

>Spyros has been following the western blast against Greece's EC
>participation for the last few years, and he justifies it in their term.

What do u mean by "blast" Gregory? Are u saying that the reports
were false? Where do u get your information from?

Since Greece has signed a number of agreements with other
countries and a certain standard of conduct is expected of her,
it is legitimate that other EC countries should complain if they
are dissatisfied. The implied "sinister plot" theory seems to me
far fetched.

>But Spyros, look what kind of contradictions you have said:
>According to your reasoning we conclude:

>1. Greece was never economically attractive for the EC.

True.

> Only political-military reasons prevailed for our acceptance in the EC.

No. Only sentimental ones.

>2. Turkey is militarily and geopolitically more atractive to the West
>than Greece.

True.

>>From these two arguments combined (both extensively used in the western
>mass media lately), then easily we can conclude that if one country should
>have been accepted in the EC, this would have been Turkey!!! Obviously
>against reality!!!

Please read below.

>At the very least, neither Turkey nor Greece would have been accepted.

Experiments like the one  with Greece will not be repeated.

>The reasoning about acceptance in the EC because of securing
>democracy in Greece is totally misleading;

Not true. I was an undergrad in London when Mr. Karamanlis was
visiting the EC capitals "knocking loudly at the EC's door".
UK newspaper reports were (if my memory does not fail me)
quite favourable to the Greek cause.
The only concrete reason for accepting Greece into the EC that
was ever mentioned was that of securing its democracy.
A big "Thank you" to the EC countries from Greece, is long
overdue.

>why not Turkey then? She is even more unstable politically,
> and according to you more valuable for the west.

Turkey is unacceptable as an EC member: 1) Turkey has a lower
standard of living than Greece and 5.7 times the population.
It is beyong the means of the EC to support such country.
2)Turkey has an appaling human rights record even under civilian
rule. 3) Allowing the free movement of people with Turkey a member
would mean (tens of) millions of Turks emmigrating to other EC
countries. This is unacceptable to all EC members. 4) Turkey has
no advocate within the existing EC. No country shows any
enthousiasm  for Turkish membership.


>I have come to my conclusions, with respect to our acceptance in the EEC,
>which are the following:

>1. Greece was *economically very attractive* in the EC for the countries
>   which had the strength to take advantage of our strategic economically
>   geography.

I have never heard anything of the kind. We must have been using different
sources.

>These countries were mostly Germany and France and pressed
> for our entrance. The other countries didn't have any direct benefits and
> for that reason they objected on the grounds of avoiding direct financial
> transfers.

I do not know about this.

>2. Greece's balance sheet with EC has not been presented to us.


The figure of US $12 Billion net transfers for the first 9 or 10
years of Greek membership comes to mind. This needs checking,
but at any rate, the sums are non-trivial.

> For different
>   reasons by different sides:

> (a) EC wants to say how much money they "gave"
>   to Greece such as to maximize their political importance,

Difficult to believe; there must be more cost effective ways of
doing so *if* such a motive was ever present.

> (b) New Democracy speaks about the same direct funding to justify
> how important and good was their decision to accelerate our entrence,

Is this true? A fine bunch of Euro-idealists they must be.

> (c) PASOK uses the same figures
> to justify how by their "battles" they gained enough funds, which then
> "explains" its 180 degrees change in policy towards EC,

The fact that Greeks are ready to believe the PASOK-nonsense, is
ample proof that most Greeks know next to nothing about the EC.
Anyhow, the EC unwittingly financed the second PASOK victory. It
has also financed the next.

>(d) Communists

It is not worth quoting this silly lot.

>3. Greece continues to be very valuable to the EC.

If you are trying to be funny Gregory, you succeeded!

> For that reason they keep
> increasing their direct transfers to Greece. Otherwise they could, at the
> very least,stop or disproportionately reduce their transfers.


I can see two reasons why the cash from the EC richer members is
still flowing 1) the desire to help the poorer members has not
been extinguished 2) with the admission of Spain and Portugal EC
has added two more net beneficiaries of EC aid. Together with Ireland,
they hold the 1/3 of the voting strength within the EC. It is not
possible to ignore their loud demands.


> The importance
> of Greece mostly stems from its geographic position as a stronghold for
> trade and banking of western european companies towards the Middle East
> and secondarily the Balkans.

More old wife's tales.  Sorry.

>4. The tremendous bashing against greece and the threat of ousting from EC
>   was for purely greece's internal consumption; to force the population
>   to resolve the political and economic instability created after 1988.

You can only use the word "bashing" if the reports were inaccurate.
Where is the evidence?
Is praise the only acceptable sentiment to Greeks?

>Gr

>PS: I never considered that blaming a country, which after 1949 emerged with
>    an infrastructure (economic, educational and social) equal to that of
>    an african third world country,

Gregory, you will have to decide between maintaining pride and seeking
sympathy. The above cannot be used in the Greek-EC relations.

>because it has not yet become equal to the  strength of the
> ex-colonial states,

Cheap shot this one. Somehow the wealth of the rich countries is
morally tainted and Greeks would rather live in honorable povetry.
There are ex-colonial countries that are relatively poor and
countries with no colonial past that are rich. This cannot be used
as excuse for Greece.


> as a cool and "objective" economic
>  internationalism; instead, I always think that behind the information
>  presented by various "strong internationally guys" there is strong self-
>  interest (absolutely understandable and justified).

The conspiracy theory again. Where is the evidence? Was the
case of the "Yugo Kalaboki" manufactured by the wicked media barons?


sg