Greece is now prepared for the return of the Elgin Marbles

For many years, one of the excuses for the British Museum’s retention of the Parthenon Sculptures was that there was no suitable place in Greece to host them. This has now been solved with the completed Acropolis Museum which continues to receive overwhelmingly positive reviews.

For anyone who considers themselves a budding ruinologist, and who has taken the time to explore the wonders of the ancient world from the Mayans to the Romans, for such a cultured person, Greece presents a most appealing, if not troubling, opportunity. The nation is the cradle of Western civilization, and Athens is chockablock with museums and historical sites — despite the whispers of bad traffic, of poor air quality, of stifling heat during the summer months.

The intrigued but uncommitted observer is precisely the type of person who will be swayed by the new Acropolis Museum in Athens, which opened to the public at the end of June. Some 30-plus years, countless delays and at least $210-million in the making, the ultra-modern structure was designed by Swiss-born architect Bernard Tschumi to rest at the foot of the Acropolis and house the treasures of that most famous of ancient Greek site’s and was the visionary dream of ex. PM and president mr K. Karamanlis (Senior) and for which in true Greek fashion just happened to be completed during his nephew’s (and namesake’s) reign.

Besides being the jewel in the crown of touristic Athens, the museum is also intended as a political cudgel with which to beat the United Kingdom. Between 1801 and 1812, the Englishman Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, made off with a goodly portion of the marble sculptures at the Acropolis under somewhat murky circumstances, during a period in which Greece was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Among his spoils was roughly 40% of the Parthenon frieze, a masterful 160-metre piece of sculpture that ringed the upper part of the Parthenon and depicted a great religious procession. Lord Elgin eventually sold these plundered marbles to the British Museum, where they reside to this day.

Greece is a country in which issues of cultural heritage take on striking levels of political significance. The fact that the British continue to hold these treasures of Greek antiquity has led the country’s politicians to trip over one another to denounce English villainy, and the construction of this new Acropolis museum is intended as a riposte to the British Museum’s claim that it couldn’t possibly return the Elgin Marbles to Greece because the nation had no proper site at which to display them.

On the issue of the return of the marbles Greece draws support not only from its many EU partners but also from its many friends one of which is British essayist and cultural gadabout Christopher Hitchens, who has long agitated for the return of the marbles to Greece. In a New York Times comment piece shortly before the opening of the museum he declared that the British Museum’s central objection was no longer operative: “The Greeks have now excelled themselves in creating a place worthy of its breath-taking contents,” he declared, adding, “It is impossible to visit Athens and not yearn for the day when Britain decides to right [its] ancient wrong.”
Despite the fanfare surrounding the museum’s opening, however, the British continue to reject Greek demands. In a curious public relations gambit, the British Museum recently offered to loan some of the marbles back to Greece on the condition that the Greek government acknowledges permanent British sovereignty over Lord Elgin’s loot. Greece rejected the offer. Government officials, though, seem confident they are on the side of angel. “Sooner or later, the marbles in the British Museum will find their natural homes,” said the museum’s director, Dimitrios Pandermanlis, during the opening festivities. “Of this I am certain.”

Keeping in line with this key came the words “We didn’t build this for the sake of the British,” from the Greek Cultural Minister Antonis Samaras who also declared to the media in late June before the museum’s opening. “But look around. Does this not negate the argument that Athens has no place good enough to house the Parthenon Marbles?” showing the deep rooted feelings the issue of the marbles has evoked in both the citizens and the politicians of Greece.

Indeed, with this new museum and other welcome changes made in Athens over the past few years (including a brand-new subway system, and large portions of the old town converted to pedestrian zones), the city rebuts those who would whisper that Athens is still not a worthwhile travel destination, making it all the more difficult for the British to justify there stance of “claim” on a piece as significant to the history of city of Athens as this.

With all this in mind then, maybe the time is near when Greece should push the debate regarding the repatriation of Cultural assets to the next level, once and for all telling the British primarily and the world ultimately that it is ready for an obvious wrong to be righted by demanding the return of the colonial booty to it’s rightful heir, Athens, making the case that Greece is all set to receive with open arms (and immaculate accommodations) their Elgin Marbles.

Some thoughts on Greco-Turkish relations and Cyprus

Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and the European Union Accession: Opportunity or Suicide?

As we approach the European Union’s decision point in December regarding a date to start accession talks with Turkey, we see more and more questions as to whether Turkey should be considered ready or indeed worthy for the honor of such an initiation into the club of Europe. While the question regarding Turkeys readiness vis-à-vis the Copenhagen criteria is a valid one, one must also ask whether the EU is ready to accept the idea of bringing a country like Turkey into the Union, or more to the point are ALL the EU member states ready to accept them under the current conditions!

To adequately examine the issue of Turkey’s accession into the EU requires a look at a multidimensional set of questions. Not only is it a matter of looking at Turkish aspirations and European readiness but also its cultural and social parameters (Human rights, Civil liberties and Freedoms - etc), its economic dimensions (Non existent economic growth, Debt and significant Black market economy), its foreign relationships (Greece, Cyprus, Kurds), all topics which should weigh heavily on the decision of accession. Arguing, that concerns about Turkey's suitability for EU membership because it is Islamic and its evident lack of Europeaness are not ill-founded either, but hard line facts and should be viewed as highly relevant, but should not be allowed to be the determining factors alone!

The best way to facilitate that Turkey is capable of being a member of the club of Europe would be for it to show it can continue to maintain a contribution to European (and world) security and step up its western orientation, allowing it thus to join the EU but only if it is willing to abide by all its rules, which in Turkey’s case would also mean the immediate demilitarization of the illegally occupied Northern Cyprus accompanied by the withdrawal of all troops stationed there and including the reversal of that government’s continued refusal to open its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft from Greek Cypriot-controlled Cyprus (an EU member since 2004), the cease of the threat of war to Greece’s rights to expand its territorial influence to 12n.m. and a complete withdrawal from it’s unfounded claims to the Aegean.

I find it abysmal that Greece, Cyprus and their major European partners have not insisted as is their right to a solution to these issues being paramount and thus precluding any EU accession talks. It’s astonishing that an opportunity (bargaining chip) such as this was presented and neither Greece, nor Cyprus chose to utilize it to reach an, if not favorable, then a just solution. The lack of willingness of its political establishments and the unjust fear of a Turkish “harder-line” on the issues is even more bogus, for you would need to consider just how much harder can the Turkish line get, the logical next step would be carrying out their threat of war, which would not be in their interests to say the least especially since it is so heavily reliant on European funding in order to stay afloat.

With the mr G. Papandreou new Greek government now firmly in place we are seeing no change to the current status in relation to Turkey’s bid, in fact, it looks like their will be an even softer stance on their reluctance to abide by the rules set and a renewed helping hand on Greece’s part to make sure they reach their goal of accession. All the while we see an increase in threats, violations of Greek sea & airspace and a general reluctance to deal with Cyprus, while consistently weighing in heavily and playing the anti-Greek card in all matters concerning Greek foreign issues (ie. Illegal immigration, Macedonian Issue) as well as creating new issues primarily within the Greek Muslim community of Thrace.

Well maybe it’s time we say enough is enough and finally look out for our best interests!
With accession talks being of such high importance for Turkey’s future, a re-evaluation of our strategic interests would be very advantageous for both Greece and Cyprus, and logical demands for solutions to issues that have plagued relations between the current NATO allies would lay the framework for a better future co-operation between them, as there will effectively be no issues dividing them……I must once again stress that such a strong card can not be left un-utilized, as it is one of few opportunities to reach a proper and just solution

Will Turkey ever pay for its Cyprus war crimes?

With the recent revelations of Turkish atrocities in Cyprus making an impression in the Greek and Cypriot media, but with no such coverage, of course, occurring in the international media, which one can say shows that it has been seduced, in one way or another and for a variety of reasons, by Turkey's pretensions to be a regional power, and where any reference to Turkish barbarism would have the Turks screaming Islamophobia and racism and the Western media cowering. (Indeed, to avoid upsetting Turkey and the so-called Islamic world, to avoid being branded racist or Islamophobic, the Western media has succumbed to the worst kind of censorship, i.e. self-censorship).

Due to this very lack of coverage we see an evident ignorance most foreigners have regarding the Cyprus issue, making the very real assumption that the biggest failure the Greek-Cypriots have is that they have failed to impress on the international community the facts of the Cyprus problem. Perhaps this is because the Cypriots are guilty of narcissism and of expecting others to share and understand their problems and obsessions, or perhaps its got to do with Greek ignorance which has created a sense of indifference to Cyprus and is a reflection of the kind of society Greece has become, one of which ‘national issues’ are regarded as anachronistic, a burden and an impediment to modernization and Europeanization. Whatever the reasoning, it doesn’t explain the fact that we have dropped the ball on the whole matter and especially our right to have Turkey pay for the crimes it committed and continues to commit to this day with its illegal occupation of the northern part of the island of Cyprus.

The frequently asked question is: why, given the irrefutable and well-documented barbarism that defines the Turkish invasion of Cyprus – the murders, executions, rapes, looting, ethnic cleansing and so on – have the governments in Cyprus and Greece neglected all these years to denounce Turkey internationally for war crimes and failed to insist that Turkey and those politicians, soldiers and paramilitaries responsible for the atrocities are brought to justice, preferring instead to repeat platitudes about Turkey needing to open its archives or Turkey needing to comply with European Court of Human Rights rulings urging Turkey to account for the 1,619 Greeks missing since the Turkish invasion?

The answer is simple: our leaders in Cyprus and Greece have never regarded making Turkey accountable for its war crimes as an intrinsic part of a Cyprus settlement, but, in fact, as an obstacle to that settlement, petrified, as they are, that any Greek campaign to bring Turkey to justice will antagonize Turkey – Turkish hysteria regarding the Armenian genocide is well known – and make that country even more unreasonable and unwilling to find a 'solution' that ends its occupation of the island.

It's also worth pointing out that however, much as we denounce Turkish barbarism, we should never forget those countries – America and Britain – that were complicit in the Turkish invasion, which schemed with and encouraged Turkey to descend on Cyprus, which supplied Turkey with the weaponry and the moral and political support it needed, and then washed their hands when the horror unfolded.

Where can Cyprus go for justice?

There is an ever increasing amount of voices calling for Turkey to be tried for war crimes in Cyprus, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is often cited as an example, but I am wondering just how viable a solution it can be, and if it can bring some form of justice (hence peace) to the issue plagued island of Cyprus and more so to its long suffering inhabitants.

So it's worth making a couple of points regarding the ICTY to see why this is not the path to justice that Cyprus can expect.and a quick look will explain why.

The ICTY, established in 1993 following a United Nations Security Council resolution, is an ad hoc court with the remit to try individuals – not organizations or governments – accused of war crimes during the conflicts that characterized the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. To establish a similar court for Cyprus would, therefore, not only require UN Security Council approval – impossible to imagine given the permanent presence of Turkey's allies, Britain and America, on the UNSC – but would also require significant resources and time to conduct plausible trials with the appropriate quality of evidence given that the crimes were committed 35 years ago.

More importantly, the ad hoc type of court that is the ICTY has effectively been superseded by the International Criminal Court, which is a permanent tribunal established to try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC was established in July 2002 and cannot investigate crimes before this date. Moreover, Turkey has so far refused to sign the ICC's founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and, therefore, the ICC has no jurisdiction over Turkish citizens.

This leaves Cyprus with two options, both unsatisfactory. One is recourse to the Council of Europe, which can issue reports and urge its members – including Turkey – to abide by its recommendations and, in extreme cases, expel countries from its ranks – as happened to Greece during the period of the junta. And, secondly, there is the European Court of Human Rights, which monitors the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and has already, in rulings in 2001 and 2008, found Turkey guilty of violating the human rights of missing Greek Cypriots and their families, and ordered Turkey to pay compensation and provide information on the whereabouts and fate of the missing. So far, eight years on from the original ECHR ruling, Turkey has done neither.

Not a new Balkan Nationalism: The “Macedonian Issue” today - A Short portrayal

Nationalism is a political principle, which holds that the political as well as the national unit should be similar, and one of the most interesting regions for someone to examine the origins of the modern aspects of nationalism is the Balkans.

The Balkans is a region considered a cauldron of ethnic hatred particularly within the last decades. Such flaring issues as the break-up of the then Yugoslavia, Kosovo, the dispute over the naming of “Macedonia” have all continued to have the same outcome in the region that all the previous disputes seem to have had, an inevitable push towards a volatile expansionist nationalistic agenda and a very real threat of war.

The very dependence of the Balkan peoples on the ideology of this type of expansionist nationalism has helped cynical post-communist leaders to legitimize their rule and the west to interfere, imposing their interests and building a new world on the rubble of the old without any regard to rightful ownership, cultural heritage let alone historical & Civil rights.

The former Yugoslavia is a study case that can provide many examples as it was only in 1945 when the then Communist leader Tito re-formed Yugoslavia into six communist ruled republics, rehashing out the old ancestors and building myths of the chosen and hidden truths.

With the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, came a thoroughly organized NATO plan that led to a dangerous experiment of turning a nation-state into a “multicultural map”, where different cultures means different borders, and states with constitutions written on a military base by western experts.

New national identities should be understood as a denial of previous identities!
No new nation can accept to be considered to derive from another nation because such a premise would cancel out the very purpose of its goal which in this case is nation building. What is needed is an honorable and unique myth of ancestry to use as a foundation of individuality, setting themselves as far apart from previous links as possible and whether this is based on a lie is of no political relevance.

If history has taught us anything it is that history belongs only to the people who have suffered from their mistakes. The Greeks took their lesson almost a century ago led by the vision of the “Great Idea” a Grand Hellenic world spanning 2 continents and 5 seas. We believed that we would take back the territories of our “Ancient” ancestors. Alas though for in the end all we saw was our people deported and butchered by the Turks.

Bringing out ancestors in the present is usually a lack of the present itself.

In the Naming Issue of the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” we are now witnessing a neighboring state, although still at its relative birthing stage willing to repeat the same mistakes, as if this is going to cure all its ills. The young State is projecting the crude emptiness of a people who are totally bereft from humanitarian ideas and who assign themselves to the identity of the chosen (in this case stolen) especially when these names come with new maps and propagandas.

Greece to its credit being in the position of political and economic leader within the region both through its EU membership and its ties to NATO has tried to build bridges with its neighbor despite the propaganda and the utter ignorance in the belief that they have the exclusive rights to use names, make up the past and worst of all dream of rewarding their self proclaimed rightful boundaries.

In the case of “Macedonia” it’s not the name that makes a difference; It is the adjectives that unravel the expectations, the strategies and the hidden agendas. Everybody can be named whatever they want to, but a name accompanied by adjectives such as “Sacred:”, “Constitutional”, “Great” or anything else that implies a right to expand, re-draw the map so as to relate to minorities are not acceptable, and even more so when these names come at a historical and cultural cost to an existing nation and in this case the rightful air to name, Greece!
.
New names and nations have always indicated tendencies and visions that our global society can easily reproduce as causes for change. However, with “Macedonia” it’s a forced change! A fallacy that supposedly benefits people while all it does is it relieves them until the moment some other chosen(s) will “discover” their right to a new heritage.

From Great Greece, to Great Serbia and Great “Macedonia”, we have seen time and time again that its always the myths that immunize the same virus of expansionism and the quest for a historical identity in a global world can become a pretext to erase identities and change borders while forming nation states based on a lie, creating the precedence of a people with both a past to push them along to an uncertain future.

The story of Macedonia to an “outsider” as an issue might not mean much more than “just a name” to the nations involved though the implications of the issue are much more deep rooted than that.

On the one hand we have Greece and its undisputable right to protect its rightful historical & cultural heritage, which encompasses not just a name but a whole region of Northern Greece and on the other sits FYROM a state for which although new we all agree has every right to self preservation, in it’s means to an ends of creating a nation state;

What Greece says is a big <> to supporting FYROM in it’s difficult quest of statehood, but be certain for by no means will it be at Greece’s expense!

TEST BY FIRE: GRADE IS “F”

The devastating wildfires that burned in Attica, home region of the Greek capital, Athens, between August 21 and 24 might have long ago subsided – but the reasons that spawned this unprecedented disaster remain very much in play.

Fortunately for Greece, the fires did not cause human casualties this time around. Exactly two years prior, a similar conflagration in the southern Greek region of the Peloponnese killed 76 people, laid waste to hundreds of communities, and consumed an estimated 670,000 acres of forest, shrub, and farm land. In the two years between the two disasters, however, little was done to help the areas affected and even less accomplished in terms of learning the lessons and trying to implement critical reforms.

Tragically, the incalculable disaster that had struck only miles from downtown Athens, instead of jolting state and society to battle stations, only triggered, yet again, the familiar, well-rehearsed reactions from government, political parties, and other “social partners,” all vociferously expressing their horror and heartbreak at the irreparable loss suffered but, not too deep down inside, wishing all the same for the speediest possible return to “normality.” This pathetic attitude becomes even more abhorrent when one contemplates the current Greek definition of this “normality”.

In Greece,
1. “normality” is a condition where laws exist, but are rarely, if ever, implemented according to the requirements that gave rise to them in the first place;
2. “normality” is a state of limbo, where lawbreakers enjoy permanent immunity, political connections, and lucrative access to resources that are generally denied to others;
3. “normality” is a state of accepting corruption as the passe-partout that accomplishes everything at minimal cost to its practitioner and maximum loss to all those who avoid it;
4. and “normality” is the guarantee of never touching anything that might upset the established “balance” or generate pressure for even symbolic change.

With the onset of the emergency, it was obvious that the authorities were, yet again, caught unawares. Firefighters weren’t dispatched in force until the fires were blasting their way through the Marathon valley -- scene of another battle which the ancient Greeks, unlike their modern counterparts, fought with teeth-grinding, grim determination and decisively won.

As the blazes rapidly snaked their catastrophic path through greenery and inhabited locations, assisted by strong winds, chaos among those committed to battle the flames spiked proportionally. It would be suffice it to say here that anyone who honestly believes disasters like the 2009 Attica wildfires can be tackled successfully in the manner displayed is well on his way to a specialist’s couch. This conclusion applies most specifically to all those, in and out of government, who claim, publicly and unabashedly, that the “firefighting plan worked”.

One who is not privy to “normal” Greek conditions stands in awe before the images of the disaster and the painful question of why the recent (and more distant) past seems to have taught nothing to those who are supposedly in charge of preparing the country against catastrophic emergencies like the one that has just befallen it. The following points, therefore, may be of some help in assisting those trying to understand what really brews in this country:

As a country with a permanent problem of forest fires, Greece has invested pitifully in building up capabilities, procuring equipment, and pursuing training doggedly: Some news reports, in the wake of the disaster, highlighted the irony of spending nearly €97 billion in arms over the last decade, when a mere €300 million would have been enough to (literally) arm Greece to the teeth against forest fires.
In a similar vein, Greece went over €15 billion in the red to stage the 2004 Olympics, which left behind little concrete benefit other than a pile of super expensive, white elephant “Olympic structures,” when one twentieth of that amount would have been enough to make this country the absolute world champion in protecting its forests from the torch.

Intentionally and maliciously burning trees in Greece goes uninvestigated and unpunished: In over twenty years of suffering devastating forest fires, Greek authorities have singularly failed to make even one single serious case against forest arsonists and successfully prosecute them all the way behind bars.

Despite specific legal prohibitions of changing land uses of burned forests, no Greek government to date has implemented the law, pushed for reforestation, and cut the hands of land grabbers cold: Once a forest is burned, a forest is gone.

Without a land register clearly establishing public lands and forest boundaries, Greece is a paradise for trespassers, land grabbers, and outright land thieves: Eons of political corruption, especially prominent at the local government level; bribery; forgery of property titles; forest-killing laws ratified under pressure from political party clients; and the ubiquitous “community development associations,” i.e. private special interest groups claiming ownership of public lands to parcel out to their members compete to create Wild West situations and leave forests undefended.

Tolerating illegal construction, and allowing illegally built structures to connect to public utility networks in flagrant breach of the law, encourages invasion of forested areas and gives a free hand to criminals posing as “developers:” Now that many parts of Attica have been laid bare with a blow torch, a quick scan of the scorched earth visually reveals the true extend of illegal building, with hundreds upon hundreds of structures rising in all their glory amid the charred remains of the trees that up until yesterday provided them with ample camouflage.

Greece should be unique among its European peers in having assigned the city Fire Service to tackle forest fires: No serious planner today would even contemplate as a joke bringing city firefighters, and their street fire engines out into the mountains to battle “the rivers of fire” that call for specialized leathernecks, with their mission-specific vehicles and other equipment.

Greece should also be unique among most countries in cutting its Forest Service completely out of the forest firefighting op plan: While the Greek Forest Service has its detractors, it still remains the one agency with intimate knowledge of terrain and land specifics that are indispensable to any operational commander trying to coordinate firefighting efforts.

The Attica 2009 wildfires were most likely triggered by deliberate human action. The very first ignition occurred at night in the middle of inaccessible nowhere on Friday, August 21. Save an act of fire-breathing dragons or the landing of an extraterrestrial space craft, this first ignition appears to be, almost certainly, the handiwork of arsonists. And the arsonists’ hand in this country is always the extension of deeply-rooted, powerful special interests aiming to land grab, “develop,” and make fortunes with total disregard for the long-term survival of a relatively unscathed environment which can continue to offer a safe place of habitation for all irrespective of social, economic, or other status.

In the end, Greek society needs to decide whether it wants a Greece turned into a desert or a Greece that maintains, protects, and enhances all the gifts of Nature that made this part of the world famous for its temperate climate and its beautiful seasons. Greece might already be, tragically, too far gone down the road of destruction of the environment to be able to reclaim climatic characteristics now long gone because of deliberate actions tolerated by the great majority of the people of this country. At least, it can try and save what little is left. But even this proposition appears of ill fate given the levels of corruption, the apathy of most toward the collective good, and the readiness of almost all to demand of others the civic consciousness they themselves so woefully are missing.