Talk:Foreign relations of Greece

Contents

1 Albania 2 Turkey 3 "their idiosyncratic views on plane spotting" 4 United States

Albania

Regarding the allegations of Greek officials bribing Albanian officials. I specifically mentioned allegations to distinguish it from a "true" fact. However, if you add that there is no evidence afterwards you make it sound as if the allegations came out of thin air, and thus skew the POV. There is circumstantial evidence such as the officials letting the beaches get ruined, the government not doing anything to promote tourism, and then those same officials going to Greece for their vacations on money they couldn't possibly have, hosted by Greek officials. On the other hand, tourism not developping in Albania is beneficial to Greece, Italy, Montenegro, etc. Thus, any activity whereby financial gain passes from officials of those countries to the officials in Albania responsible for developping trourism is suspicious. That's what I meant. --Dori 14:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Mentioning these allegations without stating there is no evidence to back them give connotations of the Greek government doing things it is not. Mention should be made afterwards that there is absolutely no evidence to back those lies. --Ikariotis

It could be doing them, and just the fact that there are many Albanians who believe so is important. Circumstantial evidence is not insignificant. It would be pretty difficult to find such evidence if it were true since it would have to come either from the Greek government or from the Albanian officials, and they are not likely to do so. If you want to remove the entire sentence fine, but I think it is important when considering continuing tensions between Albanians and Greeks. There is also a vast opinion that Greece meddles in Albanian internal affairs. An allegation is just that. You can allege anything and it does not mean that it is true or untrue. It simply exits, and in this case it is a bit more than a loony, conspiracy theory and it affects relations, that's all. --Dori 16:50, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Turkey

Since Dogac's edit, the article contains much of the Turkish POV on the Cyprus crisis, and some statements which are certainly biased. A list of his points that I consider misleading:

• The de facto division of the island, which means that there wasn't (or worse, that there isn't) any other option that the Turkish occupation. Dogac seems to question himself saying that "EOKA does not exist any more. However, the Turkish troops remains in the island...".
• This invasion was justified by the guarantorship agreement between Turkey, Greece and Britain. From the Greek POV, this is more of a pretext than an actual reason.
• EOKA wasn't against the Turkish people of the island, but rather against the British sovereignty. EOKA though had a successor, the organization called EOKA II, which is the one responsible for certain actions against the Turkish people.
• The point that the fall of the Greek junta and the restoration of "constitutional democracy in the island" was thanks to the Turkish invasion... I cannot think of a more offensive statement than this. The restoration of democracy in Greece came with a heavy price, as many democratic Greeks were tortured, exiled or executed during the resistance against the junta. This statement attempts to glorify the Turkish invasion and present it as a tribute to Greek democracy.

Also Dogac has trimmed a sentence in the beginning of the Turkey section which read:

Greece and Turkey enjoyed good relations in the 1930s, but relations began to deteriorate in the mid-1950s, sparked by the Cyprus independence struggle and Turkish violence directed against the Greek minority in Istanbul.

saying that it was "unfair" that to say that any violent acts happened there.

The violence in Istanbul wasn't really sparked by the Cypriots' struggle against the British rule, but rather caused by the fear that an independent Cyprus might want to unite with Greece. However violence did occur. There were riots against the Greek minority and pressure from the Turkish authorities to force the Greeks to leave the country in the mid-fifties. As a result, only a few hundred Greeks live now in Istanbul.

Etz Haim 23:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"their idiosyncratic views on plane spotting"

See heading... what?? :) I don't understand what is that about. --Joy [shallot] 18:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is about the area of airspace described as the "FIR Athens". There is some controversy about this subject, as Turkey does not recognize the whole area claimed by Greece. As a result, Turkish fighting airplanes spotted flying over the Aegean islands make headlines in the Greek media quite often. Whether this makes the Greeks "idiosyncratic on plane spotting" is a matter of POV rather than an actual fact. I'll be back on the FIR subject when I have more information in my hands.

If it's in the initial paragraph, it needs to be explained. (Or removed.) --Joy [shallot]

Also, I have to note that "Megali Idea" and "Great Greece" are unrelated. "Great Greece" was never part of the "Megali Idea" claims. Etz Haim 03:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is the actual relevance of mentioning the term Megali. The ancient meanings are only tangentially relevant to the foreign relations of modern Greece, whereas it does seem to have some direct relevance to the Greek-Turkish relations in the last century. --Joy [shallot]

"Megali" means "great". Great Greece (Magna Graecia) is a historical term, which was used mainly by the Romans, not the Greeks, and meant the greater area around the greek colony of Graia. Actually, this is why the rest of the world calls us "Greeks", while we call ourselves "Hellenes" (Έλληνες). The Great Idea was a nationalistic ideology. There's no connection between these two, apart from the word "great", so please do not jump into conclusions. Etz Haim 10:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, okay, I separated the sections about the two things now. The overtone of the adjective "Great" when used with regard to territories should be self-evident... --Joy [shallot]

Joy, please, assume some good faith on the Greeks (and the Romans, too) who were unfortunate enough to got stuck with "Greek" as their international name, thanks to the Roman "Magna Graecia". There are no Greek territorial claims against Italy since 275 BC, when Pyrrhus of Epirus lost his battle. Loosen up :) Etz Haim 12:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know, it wasn't my intention to link the two concepts on the merit of the applicability (obviously one is in a completely different context from the other), I was merely going after the same word ("megali"). You explained that the word doesn't really have much relevance (and thank you for that) so I've now distanced the two terms in the article.

Overall the purpose of the glossary in this article is rather vague... maybe we should merge it all into a coherent historical overview section. --Joy [shallot]

The phrase "their idiosyncratic views on plane spotting" refers to the fact that plane spotting is a hobby that is almost unknown in Greece and regarded as spying. There is a reference to it in the Wikipedia plane spotting article. The following references give more detail and you can search the BBC news website for more.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2491395.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2397061.stm
• http://www.f-t-a.freeserve.co.uk/reports/reflections_on_kalamata.htm

That phrase "their idiosyncratic views on plane spotting" is too obscure to be informative. It should be modified or removed.

Bobblewik  (talk) 11:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added a blurb about this in the article, highlighting two factoids that seem to make it a foreign relations issue rather than just something internal: that it's a crime in .gr but not elsewhere, and that it has relevance to Interpol records. --Joy [shallot] 11:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, this is not a foreign relations issue. This is a paradox of how the Greek police works, not the Greek law itself, and fortunately has not lead to any conviction in any Greek court. Undoubtedly these prosecutions should not have happened in the first place. But also note that other countries implement measures to control piecies of information reserved for their military, so this is not exclusive to Greece. Do you REALLY think this deserves such a special mention in this article? The FIR is an existing issue, that has caused a lot of tension in the Greek-Turkish relations. Nothing similar has happened with plane spotting. Etz Haim 12:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A more careful look at the "Aircraft spotting" article has made me partially review my thoughts on this one. Although I still question myself whether this belongs to this article or not, right now I feel appalled by the behaviour of the Greek authorities towards the plane spotters. Thanks for bringing it up anyway. Etz Haim 12:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is rather borderline to foreign relations, I found those couple of factoids but that's about it. It could possibly be moved to some page that outlines how the Greek legislature/police/military works, but I don't believe we have one such page for Greece... I suppose nobody would shed a tear if you removed the blurb altogether, this discussion here and the note in the aircraft spotting article could well be considered a sufficient coverage. --Joy [shallot]

Please note that the arrested plane spotters had been repeatedly warned against taking photographs of a military installation, which is prohibited in Greece. Plane spotters away from military installations are never bothered and certainly not considered spies.

United States

The article, as presently written, is wildly biased against the US, with lots of tendentious language.

Would you be more specific on this one? Use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments. Etz Haim 23:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, the view of neo-fascists versus freedom fighters is wildly inaccurate. After World War II the resistance split into the regular, government army, and the communist guerilla forces.

I have edited the article to address some of your concearns. Also, I'd appreciate it if you became a registered user and signed your comments. Etz Haim 00:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the previous critic. The article is heavily biased against the United States. In particular, the attempts at humor and sarcasm are highly inappropriate in an encylopedia entry. 68.100.106.83 09:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)