Op-ed article in NY Times refers to Greek junta

In this op-ed article published a few days ago, The Nation's Maria Margaronis uses a couple of references to the Greek Colonels' regime to demonstrate that Greece has reached a boiling point. The author maintains that, while Europe was viewed as a 'source of hope' in the 1960s and 1970s, it is now perceived as 'turning up the heat' in Greece.

Here's the relevant extract from the article:

"The coalition government of New Democracy’s Antonis Samaras is becoming more and more authoritarian, passing laws by decree and pandering to the agenda of the far-right party, Golden Dawn. References to the junta of 1967-1974 are no longer the sole province of left-wing rhetoric.

The sudden closure of the state TV and radio broadcaster ERT last month, without any debate or vote in Parliament, brought back memories of tanks and martial music for many who would normally reject such crude comparisons.

In the seven years of the colonels’ dictatorship, many Greeks looked to Europe as a source of hope. Some of Europe’s civil bodies have indeed come to democracy’s defense. But the European Union’s political and financial institutions and their partners in the International Monetary Fund are interested only in the bottom line, piling on pressure to plug holes in the balance sheet regardless of the cost to human life and civil liberties.

[...]  During the dictatorship, Europe appeared to be a safe place outside the pot.
Now, Europe itself is turning up the heat."

Book Review: Mobilizing on the Extreme Right: Germany, Italy, and the United States

Read this blogger's review of a very interesting book on the Extreme Right at the LSE Review of Books, here:

Book Review: Mobilizing on the Extreme Right: Germany, Italy, and the United States

Golden Dawn leader statement reminiscent of 1960s Greek military dictatorship

The Greek edition of the daily Kathimerini reports that the leader of the far-right party Golden Dawn, which since last year has 18 MPs in the Greek parliament, said that his movement was born 'as sent from God'.

The statement was made last Friday during an event entitled 'Greek History Lessons - The truth about 1821' that took place in a central Athens hotel conference room. 

According to the same source, Golden Dawn also announced the launch of its very own 'Foundation of Geopolitical and Historical Studies'.

See also a recent, relevant entry on The Economist's Charlemagne blog, here.

The statement is reminiscent of the Greek junta's proclamations in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In particular, the reference to God is strikingly similar to one the Greek ambassador in London made while talking to British Foreign Secretary Brown in late 1967 (see p. 26 of my book on Britain and the Greek Colonels):

'[...] as far as both countries are loyal to NATO and the western

orientation of Greece is one of the basic policies, for which Britain has

fought, the revolution [sic] should be considered by the British Government

as a gift from God’

 Verykios, London to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Athens, 12.09.1967.

Former Greek diplomat on possibility of 1967-style coup

Here's a very interesting article based on an interview with a former Greek diplomat.

According to the the New Statesman, 'Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos was a career diplomat with the Greek foreign ministry. As a junior officer with the service in the 1970s, he helped assure the then freshly democratic nation's accession to the European Union (at the time the EEC). He was at different times Athens' ambassador to Poland, Albania and Canada, and finally the director general of EU Affairs in the ministry.'

Chrysanthopoulos - from 99getsmart.com

Chrysanthopoulos discredited the possibility of a repetition of a military coup (like the one in 1967) in Greece, for the following reason:

There is some good news however that he hears from the contacts he maintains amongst his former colleagues and politicians. He is confident that there will be no military coup, as there was in 1967.

“There are contacts by certain politicians with elements in the armed forces to guarantee that in the event of major social unrest, the army will not intervene.”

“I don't want to go into too much detail here though as it is a delicate issue,” he continues. “But as a result of these contacts, I think this is going to be successful.”

UK and Human Rights abroad (continued)

Following up on yesterday's blog post on UK and Human Rights abroad, the Financial Times has published an editorial on the subject today, entitled 'Rights in Bahrain'.

The concluding paragraph shows how little things have changed since the 1970s, as Britain was also accused of double standards in its dealings with the Greek dictatorship.

According to the paper,

"The art of foreign relations for any open democracy is to balance defence of human rights with other national interests. Britain has been accused of getting the balance wrong in Bahrain, where repression is a daily presence.

The criticism, made in a parliamentary report, is valid – but only in part. When Bahrain’s government brutally cracked down on anti-regime demonstrators in 2011, leaving 35 dead, the UK was one of the first to protest publicly despite important trade and security links. It is also a behind-the-scenes player in efforts to promote dialogue between the ruling Sunni elite and Shia majority. The US, perhaps with one eye on its naval base in Bahrain, appears to be less involved than in the past, so Britain’s role has become key. Mediators are often more effective if criticism stays behind closed doors.

Nonetheless, parliamentarians are right to say that the UK needs to be more assertive. The softly-softly approach has not delivered results. The difficulty is that the Al Khalifa royal family is itself divided and hardliners have managed to stymie political reform. [...]

Britain, meanwhile, has to be more up front about the conflicts it faces in pursuing national interests. The criteria by which it judges the gravity of human rights failings in ally countries need to be more clearly explained. That is the only way to avoid being accused of double standards."

UK and Human Rights abroad

As you can see by reading this article that was published today on the BBC NEWS website,
The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has accused the UK government  of inconsistency in its dealings with other countries over human rights.

According to the BBC:

The committee accepted it was "inevitable" that there would be occasional conflicts between the UK's strategic, commercial or security-related interests and its human rights values and a "balance" had to be struck.

The report reads: "In our view, it would be in the government's interest for it to be more transparent in acknowledging that there will be contradictions in pursuing these interests while promoting human rights values.

The government's role should be publicly to set out and explain its judgements on how far to balance the two in particular cases, having taken into account the need to adapt policy according to local circumstances and developments."

You can find the full report (as well as FCO's response) here.

The 2011 report mentioned above focuses on the UK's (apparently inconsistent) dealings with Ukraine and Bahrain.

If you're interested in some historical context, the British government's 'inconsistency' in relation to the case of the Greek Colonels' regime is highlighted in my forthcoming book.

To give you an idea, this is from the conclusion of the first chapter (pp. 41-42):

"All in all, the British stance towards the dictatorship of the Colonels, during the first two years could be characterised as one of ambiguity.  

London hesitated in almost every decision it had to take, oscillating between the two poles of its policy: namely, (1) protecting its mainly commercial and strategic interests and its ‘special relationship’ with Washington, and (2) upholding human rights and promoting a return to democratic rule, basically through trying to influence the regime and sustaining some efforts of the opposition. The initial inertia of the Labour government soon changed to a pragmatic policy of establishing relations with the junta, without, however, appearing to be too close to Greece’s military dictators. The catalyst for this change were three events that took place in 1967; the Six Day War, the crisis in Cyprus, and the failed royal counter-coup. The first demonstrated Greece’s augmented significance as a NATO ally in a troubled region, the second proved to the British the value of keeping closer relations with the Greek leaders, and the third confirmed the consolidation of the regime. When 1968 came and Britain recognized the junta anew, it became clear that, despite some instances of criticism of the dictatorship -mainly for public consumption- London was willing to make use of ‘different tactics’ in order to safeguard its (chiefly commercial and strategic) interests vis-à-vis Greece. The impact of international events was once again decisive as the Prague Spring and increased Soviet naval activity in the Mediterranean were conducive to a reconsideration of British policy towards the Colonels and the adoption of a ‘business as usual’ approach, thus acting as a prelude to the new era of relations that was soon to follow."

UK Arms Export Policy- Now and then

The Committees on Arms Export Controls has published today a report saying that the UK government should apply significantly more cautious judgements on the export of arms to authoritarian regimes which might be used for internal repression.

Taken from conservatives.com

The Chairman of the Committees, Sir John Stanley (who firstly became an MP a few months before the junta's fall in 1974) said:

"This is a ground breaking Report in the depth and detail of the Committees on Arms Export Controls' scrutiny of the Government’s policies on arms exports.

The Foreign Secretary in his Oral evidence to the Committee confirmed that the British Government's policy on arms exports and internal repression was as follows:

The long-standing British position is clear: We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression."

This reminded me of the situation vis-a-vis providing arms to the Greek dictatorship of the 1960s-1970s.

Recently released FCO documents reveal that during the discussions of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee on 30 January 1969 on arms policy towards Greece, it was decided that Britain ‘should in principle permit the supply to Greece of arms which she could reasonably be expected to require in order to fulfil her NATO role’ and that only the supply of those arms intended to repress the civilian population should be prohibited.

But how exactly did Whitehall handle this conundrum?

Here's how I analyse it in my forthcoming book (pp. 246-7):

Arms sales to Greece was [a] highly controversial issue-no less so due to prior complications over trade with South Africa. The Wilson government drew a distinction (similar to the one employed vis-à-vis the apartheid regime), whereby large items which could be used for NATO purposes, such as tanks, could be exported, whereas ‘light’ items, like grenades and small rifles, which could be used for internal repression could not be sold to Athens. The Labour government tried to handle this delicate and potentially explosive question in strict confidence, thus exemplifying its twofold policy of keeping relations with the Colonels on a satisfactory level and at the same time avoiding hostile criticism, especially within parliament. This ‘combination of high-minded principle and arms sales’, as one member of the Cabinet termed it, provided an impetus for attacks on Whitehall (for the most part from its left wing), which defended its choices by returning to the Leitmotif of the dismal financial situation of Britain that was in desperate need of exports, and the importance of the arms industry with regard to the jobs it provided.



FCO photo taken from news.bbc.co.uk

Consequently, when the Conservatives came to power, a continuation of the status quo concerning arms sales was the minimum expected. In fact, the Heath government used its predecessor’s policy as a springboard for the active promotion of sales in order to boost its trade with Greece. London made its desire to sell arms to the junta more distinct, by arranging the exchange of visits of people involved, on a variety of levels, in arms sales. Most importantly, British ministers kept reiterating their willingness to provide frigates and, after an initial numbness, even tanks to the military dictatorship in Athens, in a policy that culminated in Lord Carrington’s visit to the Greek capital. Despite Whitehall’s active policy of attracting arms deals, sales seldom materialized. FCO documents reveal that the British attributed that to the ‘Byzantine style of negotiations’ of the Greeks and their unwillingness to appear to ‘go other than American’. Greek documents show that the junta was more interested in appearing to be in negotiations with the British (in order to enhance its international respectability) than proceed with sales, for the additional reason that, in the most significant cases (such as the frigates), Athens lacked the necessary funds. Therefore, while Britain was preoccupied with supporting its arms industry and generally improving its trade in a desperate effort to reverse its financial decline, the Greeks’ main concern was to use any contracts secured for political exploitation.

ECHR President warns Britain could end up like Greece under the Colonels

This is an entry from a Guardian blog back in February 2011, drawing a parallel between respect for human rights in Britain today and the Greece of the Colonels.

The entry, entitled 'David Cameron warned Britain could end up like Greece under the colonels', was wrutten by Nicholas Watt and quotes the president of the European Court of Human Rights making the following reference to the Colonels' regime:

"So the president of the European Court of Human Rights found himself under fire tonight from Eurosceptics and pro-Europeans after suggesting that Britain will look like Greece under the rule of the colonels if it refuses to abide by the court's ruling on prisoners.

Photo taken from http://federation-pro-europa-christiana.org/

Jean-Paul Costa drew the parallel with the colonels' dictatorship of 1967-74 when he was asked by the BBC what would happen if Britain withdrew from the court or refused to abide by its ruling on prisoners. The comments by the Tunisian-born French president came a week after MPs voted overwhelmingly to uphold the blanket ban which prevents prisoners from voting. The court ruled last October that Britain had to lift the ban.

This is what Costa said when he was asked what would happen if Britain abandoned the European Convention on Human Rights or refused to abide by the European Court of Human Rights ruling on prisoners. Costa told Shirin Wheeler, the presenter of the BBC Parliament programme The Record Europe:

I would say that it would be a disaster. A disaster certainly for the Council of Europe and the court but also a disaster for the United Kingdom. I say it respectfully. The UK was one of the states founding the convention, one of the founding states of the Council.
[The] UK has always been a supporter for the court and many times model for the legal systems of other countries. Many systems took advantage through the case law of our court of the legal traditions of Britain.

Wheeler asked why it would be a disaster for Britain. Costa said:

For the image of Britain I will say a simple things and again I hope this will not be considered as not respectful. The only country which denounced the convention actually was Greece in 1967 at the time of dictatorship of the Colonels. Of course after seven years, when democracy was restored in Greece, Greece returned to the Council of Europe and the convention.

I cannot imagine – even if I can understand some irritation that [the] UK which is a great country I admire the UK – could be in the same situation as the Colonels in 1967."