From: gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: Greece and the EC
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:05:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.170542@imhfhp16.epfl.ch> gavrila@imhfhp16.epfl.ch (Spyros Gavrilakis) writes:
>
>What do u mean by "blast" Gregory? Are u saying that the reports
>were false? Where do u get your information from?
      ^^^^^

In modern propaganda regime you never use *false* information,
you just use *selective* one. As far as my information comes
from the same sources like yours. The differerence lies that
I don't follow their political connotations blindly.


>> Only political-military reasons prevailed for our acceptance in the EC.
>
>No. Only sentimental ones.


Nonsense argument by default. (You contradict yourself; look below).


>Experiments like the one  with Greece will not be repeated.


You follow their arguments. You don't explain why they keep
dealing in financial terms so warmly yet (look below).


>>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.


Nonsense. You take the mass media reports in face value.


>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.


Perfectly agreed. Rational thinking from EC excludes Turkey.
The same rational thinking permitted some strong EC members
to promote Greece's membership.



>>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.


I didn't use sources for that; I just made quite reasonable *inferences*.


>>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.


Pretty good. It's $18 billion. Still you don't answer the question
about the total balance sheet.


>> (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.


I believe it :-).


>> (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.


No, they are not. They try to be good politicians. Better than the
Danish ones :-).


>> (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.


Why? EC deals with Greece. Not with parties.


>>(d) Communists
>
>It is not worth quoting this silly lot.


I don't share the same attitude. Eventhough I disagree to most of
their policies.



>>3. Greece continues to be very valuable to the EC.
>
>If you are trying to be funny Gregory, you succeeded!


May be yes. But my fiture lies with Greece. Not with others :-).


>> 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.


It's not convincing. They accepted Spain and Portugal after the
supposed troubles with Greece were felt. And still they evaluate
the Ibirian markets pretty well. If Greece was the only trouble
they could easily single her out one way or an other.


>> 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.


Neither shared nor accepted.


>>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?


Accurate in what sense? Into numbers yes, but into objectivity? No.
Look at the "daemonizing"  attitude against the Serbs from the mass
media. You still believe that they are objective? (Self determination
for Croats, Muslims; but, god's forbid for Serbs...).


>Is praise the only acceptable sentiment to Greeks?


Ridiculous. After being in the US and having been fed up with
a sea of flags with the first opportunity, looking at the attitudes
of many Greeks I can see who is praising whom.


>>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.


How come? You said that EC accepted us because of sympathy...
In any case, I was obviously referring to you, not to the EC.
Between foreign ministries there is NO sympathy; there is only
common interests.


>>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.


Tell me one. They were either resources' rich (including geostrategically
justifying mass US support) or ex-colonial countries.



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


Yugo Kalaboki? Yes check the Italians ones :-).


Gr