I thank my colleague Nikola for the invitation. It is a pleasure for me to be here, in this northern country again, and to have delivered on the promises I have made.We said that, as soon as the name of the airport was changed, we would come to visit your beautiful city, launch the second phase of the stabilization and association agreement between your country and the European Union, and ask for and support your membership in the Adriatic and Ionian Initiative (EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region – EUSAIR).I believe strongly in our common future, in our joint cooperation that will benefit our citizens, our countries and the whole region. It is my deep belief that we can resolve the problems -and we should to be able to do this- and we took steps in this direction today. Problems that Nikola and I did not create, but already existed. And we need to resolve these problems because this will enhance the friendship between our peoples, our daily contacts and economic cooperation, the region’s security and stability. This will make it possible for both of us, both states, to contribute to the growth of the whole region’s economy. I believe that overcoming political constraints contributes to economic and social development.I am very pleased that I will be meeting with most of the country’s political leadership. In particular, I want to thank Prime Minister, Zoran Zaev, in advance for giving me the opportunity for what I am sure will be a creative discussion. And I also want to thank Mr. Xhaferi, Mr. Ahmeti and Mr. Mickoski, with whom we will be able to exchange views, and whom we will brief on where we stand.I want to say that the easy thing in politics is to do nothing. In foreign policy in particular – I say this as a professor of International Relations, not just as a Minister – I don’t remember a lot of people complaining about and criticizing a Minister who isn’t doing much and doesn’t solve problems. But then life goes on and imposes its own solutions, and they are very costly. Ministers responsible for foreign policy, within the framework of their government, and on the initiative of their prime ministers, must find solutions. And they need to find solutions that, regardless of one opinion or another, one day or another, eventually help their country in the long run.Greece is currently emerging from its economic crisis. Personally, I believe that, if we are to have the economic growth all of us desire, we need the collaboration of the whole region, we need the whole region to join the international organizations our neighbouring countries want to join. And we believe in honest compromises. In an honest compromise, both sides stand to gain in the long term. In an honest compromise, not a rotten one as I call it, but an honest compromise, both sides will win, no one comes out a loser. But, certainly, in a compromise – and this also applies to Greece, which wants an honest compromise – you cannot get everything you have in mind or you believe in. Realistically and pragmatically, you have to get what is crucial for you, and you have to let what is crucial for the other side. And the main thing is the common interest of your future.I believe firmly in regional stability and security. I believe firmly that our friendly northern neighbour is a country with which our relations, on a state level, must reflect what is actually happening in day-to-day life. We know how many millions of people move between and visit the two countries. We are aware of the satisfaction in which the economy of Northern Greece welcomes the citizens of your country, whether as consumers or tourists or friendly visitors, and vice versa. And I believe that our two peoples are very, very close, and historical heritage keeps them apart. They are close, and we must ensure that the future brings them even closer together. Our states and our peoples will benefit from our joint actions in the future and from our caring for the younger generations throughout the region. Nikola, thank you again for the invitation.JOURNALIST: I would like comments from both Ministers, but they can decide between themselves who will respond. There are two issues here: The proposal from Mr. Nimetz, whether you can say that two drafts instead of two documents, we are now talking about three.N. KOTZIAS: Thank you for the question: the texts are drawn up to clarify the sides’ positions and proposals. Of course, in the end we will come up with a single text. We have agreed to a great extent on what we want for the future, as well as on certain other issues. Mr. Nimetz, will take what we agree on and what we will negotiate with him, in his presence, and set it out as a text for the Security Council and the General Assembly, where it will be determined that the problems referred to in UN Resolutions 817 and 845 were resolved, and thus we can move further ahead. And by further ahead, I mean we will agree on how we can develop our cooperation. Texts are always an aid in negotiations. I firmly believe that, with regard to the issue we are dealing with, face-to-face talks and negotiations are the most important and, in my opinion, most positive thing we can do to date.JOURNALIST: Ministers, I would like to ask if you are willing to move ahead to finding a definitive, clear solution, without pending issues, and what the elements of such a solution might be. Thank you very much.N. KOTZIAS: The journalist asking the question shares the same first name (Nikolas) with us. I want to say that I agree. We need a just, rational solution that not only resolves the problems of the past, but also creates a positive future, rather than ‘investing’ in new frictions in the future. So we want a solution that is stable and opens up paths, and not a solution that creates other problems in the future. Thank you.JOURNALIST: Regarding an agreement that has been ratified in Parliament [...] rendered part of domestic law and order, and has, it could be said, greater weight than the Constitution, if we bear in mind that this agreement will be submitted to the United Nations. Because you are asking for greater guarantees; in other words, that fYROM will implement what is agreed upon between the two countries, given that an international agreement, from a legal standpoint, is stronger.N. KOTZIAS: This question was also put to me by your country in the negotiations, so it is a well founded one. We aren’t asking for additional guarantees. We are simply bearing in mind our experience in the European Union with the rulings of a number of Constitutional Courts that consider their Constitutions to supersede European and international law. This is the tradition of the European Union. I remind you of multiple rulings of Germany’s Constitutional Court, regarding the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon. In other words, the European Union treaties of the past 20 years. This is an issue with regard to the constitutional amendment we are asking for. We’re discussing it. I think we really do need to clarify this, and we’ll see where we get to in the end. I don’t think this is an issue that we can go into here and now, because we are in the midst of negotiations.JOURNALIST: Mr. Kotzias, you talk about an honest solution that will satisfy both sides. What do you see as an honest solution to the problem? If you insist on the amendment of the Constitution, the people here do not see that as honest at all. If you insist on a name combined into a single word, untranslatable, nor is this seen by any of the country’s citizens as honest. Could you perhaps tell us what your honest solution consists of? How you understand it?N. KOTZIAS: Honest, fair and correct. An honest, fair and correct solution is one that takes into account the main interests of each side. And the main interests of each side will be pinpointed in the negotiations we are carrying out and in the result we get. I don’t want to analyse my positions for you right now, in the midst of the negotiations.But some other time, I will give you dozens of examples of how constitutional amendments are made and names are found. This country, like Greece, has made constitutional amendments. There is nothing shameful in this. That is, as a matter of principle – I’m not talking about our talks per se. Laws, constitutions and attitudes change over time. Moreover, as I have pointed out, this country has made two major and five minor amendments. All I’m simply saying is that we shouldn’t make a moral issue out of the question of the amendment. What is specific at this instance is what could enable both sides – not the extremes of the two sides, but the two sides – to feel satisfied, while also laying the path to a common future. A solution that ‘vanquishes’ one side or makes one side foolishly celebrate that it got a lot and gave a little is not a good solution. It isn’t just. It isn’t morally honest.What we are seeking now, from among the various opinions we have, is to find a comprehensive solution that embodies what each side sees as being the most important. Neither side can accept the entirety of the positions of the other, so that is why we are negotiating. Even at home, as couples or with our children, we make compromises. You cannot coexist with someone without making compromises.And there are good, fair compromises, and what I call rotten compromises. It is a rotten compromise if one side subordinates itself or gives in to the other. We have forces in both countries that would like to dictate to the other side how it should behave. That’s not how it works. We want a common future. We want our friendship to grow, with respect for each side. So we have to reach an honest compromise.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.mfa.gr |
