“Greece has a strong international capital”, which “is greatly strengthened when the country demonstrates consistency and continuity in the way it exercises its diplomacy”, underlined the Minister of Foreign Affairs Giorgos Gerapetritis in his greeting at the annual conference of the Hellenic Society of International Law and International Relations (EEDDDS) on the topic “The war in Gaza and the Palestinian issue” on Wednesday evening.

As he pointed out, Greece implements a “principled foreign policy” and “it is not transactional, i.e. it does not put an interest in every case, which has to do with give and take”.

“And it’s not topical either”added the minister, stating that this “allows us to have a very stable relationship, an honest relationship and to be able to be reliable interlocutors with more interested parties”.

“What is happening today is Greece at the level of the Middle East and the conflicthas maintained a very consistent attitude from the first day, which continues to this day”, he pointed out.

The international community, as well as those directly involved, appreciates “that this is a position of principleto talk with all parties’ with Israel, a strategic partner of ours, with the Arab world and the Palestinian Authority and of course with the international organizations.

“We suppose that we will also have a strong speech the next day, when this nightmare ends and things return to a more normal situation,” he stressed.

As he further stated, our country “is present with a capital of international diplomacy, which is – I feel – quite important, perhaps disproportionate to its geographical extent”.

He also emphasized that the diplomatic capital possessed by each country is the synthesis of several parameters, it has to do with geopolitical power, with the area and the population, with the political and diplomatic staff and with all the wider power available to a country.

“Ultimately, whether a country is doing well in the economic sector, even if it is small like Greece, reflects on the international capital it has, either in international forums or at the level of bilateral relations,” he said.

In the Middle East part, Greece said “the obvious”: “That, first, terrorism and aggression in any form should be condemned. Secondly, that the values ​​of International Law and especially of Humanitarian Law, that is war, with first and foremost the protection of civilians, should be respected. Thirdly, that there should be no case of using citizens as shields, i.e. we should have neither hostages, nor any other form of inhumane and undignified treatment of people. Fourth, to ensure sustained and sustainable humanitarian aid. And, fifthly, that there should be an immediate international conference, which would deal not only with the immediate issue, which is the humanitarian ceasefire and humanitarian aid, but also with the underlying debate, which is producing the crisis, which has to do with the long-standing difference in the Middle East.”

“The images are not tolerated and should not be tolerated by the international community” from Gaza

It is self-evident, as he emphasized, that the issue of resolving the Palestinian issue within the framework of the decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations Organization, at the moment, is the only solution that could lead to a sustainable and more stable situation in the Middle East.

He noted once more that Hamas should not be identified with the Palestinian people and Greece’s effort is to give greater legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority, as “it is that it is the only legitimate interlocutor of the next day”.

He also underlined Israel’s right to self-defense, which “is not disputed, but must be exercised within the framework of International Law, as required by the principles of proportionality and especially necessity”.

Unfortunately, he added, however, “today we have reached a reality that far exceeds the requirements of International Law and any concept of humanity”.

“The loss of life has exceeded all precedent. The violence with which this war is progressing is, I think, unprecedented. The extreme positions that have taken place have created an environment of hostility that makes any approach between the parties very difficult.”

“The images, which come with a very high level of civilian, women and child deaths, are not tolerated by the international community and should not be tolerated by the international community. The images of using civilians as human shields, the absolute disrespect of human dignity.”

“The embarrassment of the international community to be able to impose a solution to this nightmare it is indicative of the more general asymmetry that exists, not only in the part of international organizations, i.e. universal governance, but also of an overall inability to be able to impose a more deliberative solution”, he underlined.

The most important thing, as he emphasized, is “to be able to impose with creative solutions, with creative proposals, the need for a humanitarian pause and to have as much as possible, continuous assistance to the affected civilians”.

Involvement in decision making in organizations

As he mentioned, two very important events related to Gaza are underway. One is the United Nations Security Council meeting in New York. The second event is a very large operation to create a sustainable humanitarian corridor to the Middle East, where more countries contribute, including Greece, with Cyprus as its hub, which is the closest country to the Middle East.

The big problem, as he noted, regarding the maritime humanitarian corridor was the fact that there is no safe construction in Gaza. “Which, however, creates other security risks and, of course, has to do with the depth of the water. A super complex exercise. But at this moment it is necessary to have this humanitarian corridor”.

On the part of the Security Council, noted that there is an issue that has to do with the architecture of decision-making in all international organizations.

“Because the balance must be maintained between the member states participating in any international organization, there should be many dykes, that is, there should be a veto. This always creates a huge hurdle when it comes to making a decision.”

This, as he said, “is the case now also of the UN, where the competence of the UN Security Council, due to the impossibility of making a decision, we are forced to transfer it to the UN General Assembly, as a result of which a relative asymmetry is created. It is a phenomenon of the time.”

On the part of Ukraine, Russia’s veto prevents any decision to be taken in the Security Council. In the case of the Middle East, the veto of the United States creates a corresponding problem in making any decision at the level of the Security Council. What’s the result; The decision-making process is transferred to the General Assembly where other conditions and a qualified majority apply, but it does not have a veto.

The same problem, he added, also exists in the European Union, where because of the veto – which veto is ultimately the defense of the member state against the collective of the international formation – we face the same problems.

“There is a very serious discussion going on right now, which is really about revising the decision-making process, so that the veto turns into something else, which might be a qualified majority or something else,” he said. .

“However, the more the mix of member states participating in international organizations expands,” he said, the more “difficult it becomes to reach a unanimous decision.”

“So there are now voices calling for a change of model,” he concluded.