vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (01/26/85)
> If the US "controlled" NATO, [...] the French and Greeks would be > militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute Cyprus [...] I don't know about your claims regarding other countries but I do know the situation in Greece and Cyprus painfully well. Your argument just doesn't stand in the face of facts. (Unfortunately) Greece now IS militarily, as well as politically, integrated in NATO. Greece withdrew from the military organisation of NATO for a short period (1974-1980). The step of withdrawal was taken by the conservative government that came to power after the collapse of the Greek junta (July 1974), under tremendous popular pressure: NATO and the US were (and are) seen by the majority of the Greek people as the instigators, financiers and supporters of both a domestic tyranny (the fascist junta of 1967-1974) and of the Turkish aggression in Cyprus. The same government later reversed the withdrawal in late 1980, when it became clear it would lose the next elections (Nov. 1981) anyway. The present Greek government was elected on the basis of a programme explicitly calling for withdrawal from NATO altogether. It has since recanted its pre-election promise under pressure by the US government. So much about the US not controlling NATO. Regarding Turkey's "reconstituting" Cyprus: The US would never want Turkey to "reconstitute" Cyprus. Cyprus has been a nation militantly committed to the non-aligned movement. It has an extremely strong Communist Party (>40% of the votes) and occupies an extremely strategic location in the Eastern Mediterranean. The last thing the US would want to see is an independent and united Cyprus. What it would like to see is a divided Cyprus, half Greek, half Turkish -- which would automatically bring the entire island under the US "sphere of influence". So, Turkey is not resisting "reconstituting Cyprus" IN SPITE of US desires, it is doing it BECAUSE of US interests. Of course, the US doesn't want Turkey to take this too far because then Greece might be "lost" irrevocably. Such are the "political realities" that the US has to accommodate in NATO. They have nothing to do with the real interests of the Greek people or the Turkish people or the Cypriot people. The point of whatever accommodation is to strike the balance needed to optimally screw all of them.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/28/85)
>> If the US "controlled" NATO, [...] the French and Greeks would be >> militarily integrated, the Turks would reconstitute Cyprus [...] >I don't know about your claims regarding other countries but >I do know the situation in Greece and Cyprus painfully well. >Your argument just doesn't stand in the face of facts. >(Unfortunately) Greece now IS militarily, as well as politically, >integrated in NATO. Greece withdrew from the military organisation >of NATO for a short period (1974-1980). The step of withdrawal was >taken by the conservative government that came to power after the >collapse of the Greek junta (July 1974), under tremendous popular >pressure: NATO and the US were (and are) seen by the majority of >the Greek people as the instigators, financiers and supporters of >both a domestic tyranny (the fascist junta of 1967-1974) and of the >Turkish aggression in Cyprus. The same government later reversed >the withdrawal in late 1980, when it became clear it would lose the next >elections (Nov. 1981) anyway. The present Greek government was elected >on the basis of a programme explicitly calling for withdrawal from NATO >altogether. It has since recanted its pre-election promise under >pressure by the US government. So much about the US not controlling >NATO. I stand by my assertion: Greece does not permit any of its national forces to come under NATO command. It is still a member of the military organization of the alliance, but the FACT is that Greek forces are far less well-coordinated with those of its nominal allies than even French forces are. Another interesting fact is that American military aid to Greece and Turkey is fixed in the ratio of 7:10. If the US were free in this regard, Turkey would be receiving far more aid than Greece, as (1) It's equipment is older than the Greeks, and (2) It bears far greater burdens in the general interests of NATO. Am I to draw the conclusion that the Greek government exercises control over the US government because they have successfully pressured the US into following an alternate policy? That would be absurd---as absurd as the charge that the US controls Greece. THE GREEK GOVERNMENT TOOK WHAT ACTION IT FELT WAS IN ITS OWN BEST INTERESTS. Perhaps the Greek government did not want to risk losing US military aid, or felt withdrawal would interfere with Greece's entry into the Common Market. Perhaps they decided that they stood a greater chance of favorably resolving their disputes with Turkey by threatening withdrawal, rather than actually withdrawing. In any case, it is apparent that the Pan-Hellenic Social Movement decided to try for the best of both worlds: to maintain the advantages accrueing from being a member in good standing of the Western European Community and avoiding the political fallout from its broken promise by blaming US pressure for the change of policy. Apparently, people like you are willing to equate pressure with coercion, and thus that strategy is succeeding. Your beef is with the politicians in Athens, not in Washington. >Regarding Turkey's "reconstituting" Cyprus: The US would never >want Turkey to "reconstitute" Cyprus. Cyprus has been a nation >militantly committed to the non-aligned movement. It has an extremely >strong Communist Party (>40% of the votes) and occupies an extremely >strategic location in the Eastern Mediterranean. The last >thing the US would want to see is an independent and united Cyprus. >What it would like to see is a divided Cyprus, half Greek, half Turkish -- >which would automatically bring the entire island under the US "sphere >of influence". So, Turkey is not resisting "reconstituting Cyprus" >IN SPITE of US desires, it is doing it BECAUSE of US interests. >Of course, the US doesn't want Turkey to take this too far because >then Greece might be "lost" irrevocably. Such are the "political >realities" that the US has to accommodate in NATO. They have nothing >to do with the real interests of the Greek people or the Turkish people >or the Cypriot people. The point of whatever accommodation is to strike >the balance needed to optimally screw all of them. The loss to American interests resulting from continued Turko-Greek hostility is far greater than any possible gain from the weakening of a minor non-aligned power. Cyprus has not threatened American interests in the past, and has not raised the American hostility you claim exists. Your view of American priorities is quite self-serving (and contradictory); on the one hand you argue that NATO is a vehicle for the advancement of primarily American interests, yet on the other you claim that the US is supporting the division of Cyprus, which seriously weakens that vehicle. Finally, if Cyprus were reconstituted and a general settlement of outstanding Greco-Turkish disputes were reached, the political position of the Greek government would be weakened, as they would no longer be able to blame their shortcomings on the US and would not be able to reap the benefit of nationalist feeling directed against Turkey. With the Pan-Hellenic Social Movement having a vested political interest in maintaining the status quo and the national resentment against the US and Turkey which helps keep them in power, it would be surprising to see any serious attempts at reconciliation by the Greek government. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (01/30/85)
> Another interesting fact is that American military aid to Greece and > Turkey is fixed in the ratio of 7:10. If the US were free in this > regard, Turkey would be receiving far more aid than Greece [...] > Am I to draw the conclusion that the Greek government exercises > control over the US government because they have successfully > pressured the US into following an alternate policy? [...] > Apparently, people like you are willing to equate pressure > with coercion [...] When an elephant is "applying pressure" on an ant, yes I tend to view that as coercion. I consider it evident that the relationship between the US and Greece is not equitable. If you don't, I'll be happy to provide evidence. > Your beef is with the politicians in Athens, not in Washington. Well, for better or worse, no one tried to defend the decisions of the politicians in Athens in this newsgroup. Someone tried to defend the decisions of the politicians in Washington and that's what I was responding to. Moreover, whatever my beef with Athenian politicians, it was the "politicians in Washington" (some of them, anyhow) not those in Athens who saddled my country with seven years of bloody, fascist rule. This weighs on my mind too -- and I have no apologies for this "subjectivity". > The loss to American interests resulting from continued Turko-Greek > hostility is far greater than any possible gain from the > weakening of a minor non-aligned power [i.e. Cyprus]. [...] I am afraid you missed the point, so let me repeat it. First, no US "interest" was "lost" due to continued Turko-Greek hostility (yet). Greece is still in NATO, the US and NATO bases there are alive and well. (I must say, things aren't as good for the US gov't as they were during the years of the junta, but hey -- can't have it all.) Weapon sales (and I mean sales, not "aid") to both countries are soaring. Second, the "gain" to US "interests" does not lie in the weakening of a "minor non-aligned power", but in the passing of an extremely strategic island to the US "sphere of influence". Hell, the US can't have their bases in Cyprus today. If the island was partitioned between Greece and Turkey they would. [A few minutes' flight from Lebanon. Not bad!] > Your view of American priorities is quite self-serving > (and contradictory); on the one hand you argue that NATO is a vehicle > for the advancement of primarily American interests, yet on the other > you claim that the US is supporting the division of Cyprus, which > seriously weakens that vehicle. I'll skip the "self-serving" business. Suffice it to say that what I'm interested in discussing is the correctness of my view on US priorities -- my psychological motivations for holding that view isn't a subject I care to debate in net.politics. Concerning the "contradiction". There is none: on the one hand NATO _is_ a vehicle for the advancement of US interests; on the very same hand the US is supporting the division of Cyprus while seeking the optimal type of division -- one that will not just FORCE any Greek government out of NATO. I don't see any contradiction here; apparently neither does the US gov't. > Finally, if Cyprus were reconstituted and a general settlement of > outstanding Greco-Turkish disputes were reached, the political > position of the Greek government would be weakened, as they would no > longer be able to blame their shortcomings on the US and would not be > able to reap the benefit of nationalist feeling directed against > Turkey. This is something that only someone totally oblivious to the realities of Greek politics could concoct. Any Greek government that succeeded in bringing about a stable and just solution to the Cyprus situation, would have guaranteed its election and re-election until, at least, the millenium. The one thing the present Greek government is guilty of, is recanting on its pre-election promises to rid the country of the US domination that has caused much blood and tears since 1947. Vassos Hadzilacos. PS: An incident that recently arose sheds intriguing light to the question of what sort of interests Greece's participation in NATO serves. In the NATO War College, in Rome, and in the presence of Greek officers, a seminar was held developing a scenario whereby a leftist gov't is elected in Greece, resulting in a coup d' etat by the Greek army... [Oh, I can't stand all those radical pinkos who, through naivete or malice, just can't bring themselves to accept the simple fact: NATO was set up to defend Freedom and Democracy.]
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/31/85)
>> = David Rubin redux > = Vassos Hadzilacos redux = David Rubin redux redux >> Another interesting fact is that American military aid to Greece and >> Turkey is fixed in the ratio of 7:10. If the US were free in this >> regard, Turkey would be receiving far more aid than Greece [...] >> Am I to draw the conclusion that the Greek government exercises >> control over the US government because they have successfully >> pressured the US into following an alternate policy? [...] >> Apparently, people like you are willing to equate pressure >> with coercion [...] >When an elephant is "applying pressure" on an ant, yes I tend to view >that as coercion. I consider it evident that the relationship between the >US and Greece is not equitable. If you don't, I'll be happy to provide >evidence. It evidently isn't, since you regard pressure by Greece upon the US as fair play, but pressure by the US on Greece as out of bounds. However, Greece remains free to withdraw from NATO and end all military relations with the US (including, of course, aid). No plausible amount of US pressure would be sufficient to prevent this, unless either (1) The ending of that relationship is contrary to Greek interests, or (2) The reaction of the Common Market would be so unpleasant that #1 again applies. >> Your beef is with the politicians in Athens, not in Washington. >Well, for better or worse, no one tried to defend the decisions of >the politicians in Athens in this newsgroup. Someone tried to defend >the decisions of the politicians in Washington and that's what I was >responding to. Moreover, whatever my beef with Athenian politicians, >it was the "politicians in Washington" (some of them, anyhow) not those >in Athens who saddled my country with seven years of bloody, fascist rule. >This weighs on my mind too -- and I have no apologies for this "subjectivity". You are quite right about some politicians in Washington bearing some responsibility for the Greek military dictatorship, but to exempt all Greek politicians from similar blame is ingenuous. Don't misunderstand me; my country's actions regarding the coup in Greece were despicable. What I am arguing is that Greece's interests still bind it to the US; apparently the politicians in Athens agree. Moreover, this "subjectivity" of yours appears to be selective. Do you still bear resentment towards Germany and Italy for their direct and bloodier occupation during World War II? Do you bear resentment towards the Soviet Union and Bulgaria for their incitement of Greece's bloody civil war? If you do, you cannot advocate any reasonable policy. If you don't, then you must concede that your resentment towards the US will pass, too, and you ought not let that resentment interfere with your judgment of Greece's national interests, even in the present. >> The loss to American interests resulting from continued Turko-Greek >> hostility is far greater than any possible gain from the >> weakening of a minor non-aligned power [i.e. Cyprus]. [...] >I am afraid you missed the point, so let me repeat it. First, no >US "interest" was "lost" due to continued Turko-Greek hostility (yet). >Greece is still in NATO, the US and NATO bases there are alive and well. >(I must say, things aren't as good for the US gov't as they were during >the years of the junta, but hey -- can't have it all.) Weapon sales >(and I mean sales, not "aid") to both countries are soaring. >Second, the "gain" to US "interests" does not lie in the weakening >of a "minor non-aligned power", but in the passing of an extremely >strategic island to the US "sphere of influence". Hell, the US can't >have their bases in Cyprus today. If the island was partitioned between >Greece and Turkey they would. [A few minutes' flight from Lebanon. Not bad!] You apparently miss my point, too. American interests have already been severely damaged by the dispute, as both countries now deploy much of their forces (in the case of Greece, almost all) against one another, not against the Warsaw Pact. The poisoned relations between the two countries also makes the necessary cooperation between them in case of a general European war extremely problematic. Much of US aid (yes, the US sells some, but gives away more) to the two nations is wasted (from an American point of view) in deployment against the other. And even you will concede that the gain of a base in a permanently partitioned Cyprus while retaining valuable bases in Greece would be impossible. Further, the bases in Greece are more valuable, as they oversee routes the Soviet fleet would have to use to gain access to the Mediterranean, while a potential base in Cyprus would provide no new capability to US forces (it would be redundant). The Greek bases are now also far more expensive, in both political and monetary capital, to maintain. >> Your view of American priorities is quite self-serving >> (and contradictory); on the one hand you argue that NATO is a vehicle >> for the advancement of primarily American interests, yet on the other >> you claim that the US is supporting the division of Cyprus, which >> seriously weakens that vehicle. >I'll skip the "self-serving" business. Suffice it to say that what >I'm interested in discussing is the correctness of my view on >US priorities -- my psychological motivations for holding that view >isn't a subject I care to debate in net.politics. Yet you bring up your resentment of past US policy as rationalization for your "subjectivity". >Concerning the "contradiction". There is none: on the one hand NATO _is_ >a vehicle for the advancement of US interests; on the very same hand >the US is supporting the division of Cyprus while seeking the optimal >type of division -- one that will not just FORCE any Greek government >out of NATO. I don't see any contradiction here; apparently neither >does the US gov't. Again, you are being ingenuous. Any partition of Cyprus which allowed the US to build a Cypriot base would result in Greece's withdrawal from NATO. US policy tends to be extremely conservative and risk-averse, not the daring, gambling policy which you presume. >> Finally, if Cyprus were reconstituted and a general settlement of >> outstanding Greco-Turkish disputes were reached, the political >> position of the Greek government would be weakened, as they would no >> longer be able to blame their shortcomings on the US and would not be >> able to reap the benefit of nationalist feeling directed against >> Turkey. >This is something that only someone totally oblivious to the realities >of Greek politics could concoct. Any Greek government that succeeded >in bringing about a stable and just solution to the Cyprus situation, >would have guaranteed its election and re-election until, at least, >the millenium. The one thing the present Greek government is guilty of, >is recanting on its pre-election promises to rid the country of the >US domination that has caused much blood and tears since 1947. Gratitude is good for one election, tops. To the end of the millenium? Surely an exaggeration. Moreover, your previous rationalization of your "subjectivity" lend credence to my claim that resentment is a powerful political force. Far more so, I submit, than gratitude. Your last comment, regarding what the present Greek government is "guilty" of (I believe it is guilty of acting in the national interest), is precisely what I meant when I suggested you blame Athenian politicians for your dissatisfaction. There is where the decisions are made regarding Greece's continued NATO membership, not in Washington. >Vassos Hadzilacos. >PS: An incident that recently arose sheds intriguing light >to the question of what sort of interests Greece's participation >in NATO serves. In the NATO War College, in Rome, and in the presence >of Greek officers, a seminar was held developing a scenario whereby >a leftist gov't is elected in Greece, resulting in a coup d' etat by >the Greek army... >[Oh, I can't stand all those radical pinkos who, through naivete or >malice, just can't bring themselves to accept the simple fact: >NATO was set up to defend Freedom and Democracy.] At NATO installations they constantly game (simulate) different military situations, including tactical nuclear warfare in West Germany, civil war in Poland, and sabotage of industry by the French and Italian Communist Parties. Does this mean that they foresee (or act to bring about) such events? Conspiracies everywhere... The fundamental problem is that the Greek political body is highly polarized with very few basic policies reached by national consensus. It is this which makes Greek democracy more fragile than most other Western ones, not some simulation by Americans, Italians, Germans, and Belgians whose plausibility is derived from recent Greek history. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (02/03/85)
> [...] However, Greece remains free to withdraw from NATO and end all > military relations with the US (including, of course, aid). No > plausible amount of US pressure would be sufficient to prevent this, > unless either > > (1) The ending of that relationship is contrary to Greek > interests, or > (2) The reaction of the Common Market would be so unpleasant > that #1 again applies. Or, to throw in another possibility, (3) Another US-sponsored dictatorship is imposed on Greece. It has happened before; it could happen again, as the recent incident I cited in my previous posting (also, see below), indicates. Now of course, to prevent this possibility Greece must withdraw from NATO and curtail the U.S. dominance in that country. I am only mentioning this possibility to show the falsity of your assertion that "no plausible amount of US pressure would be sufficient to prevent" Greece's withdrawal. My conclusion is that to break out of this vicious circle some daring action is necessary. > [...] Don't > misunderstand me; my country's actions regarding the coup in Greece > were despicable. What I am arguing is that Greece's interests still > bind it to the US; apparently the politicians in Athens agree. Not all of them do. Moreover, and more importantly, the Greek people don't. To anticipate your, by now standard, question: "Why did they vote for those politicians?" In the last elections they voted for a government that had stated (and still states, but only states) that Greece's interests do NOT bind it to the US. > [...] Moreover, this "subjectivity" of yours appears to be selective. > Do you still bear resentment towards Germany and Italy for their direct > and bloodier occupation during World War II? Yes I do. Note: I do not bear resentment toward the German people or the Italian people (just like I don't bear any resentment toward the US people, or any other people for that matter). But I do bear plenty of resentment for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. > Do you bear resentment towards > the Soviet Union and Bulgaria for their incitement of Greece's bloody > civil war? You are grossly misinformed about the Greek civil war as well. The only foreign powers that interfered in the Greek civil war were Britain and the US. Britain instigated the "first round" of the civil war (1945-1947) by shooting unarmed civilian demonstrators in December 1945 in Athens. The US entered the scene with the Truman doctrine in 1947 when England, decimated by the war, could no longer afford a military presence in Greece. So, the US, relatively unharmed by the war, "took over". It was US napalm bombs (I believe the first "field" use of this weapon) that burned Greek villages, not Soviet -- not to mention Bulgarian. To pretend that the Soviet Union and Bulgaria "incited" the Greek civil war -- presumably because one of the warring sides was the Greek Left -- is ridiculously ahistorical. > If you do [bear resentment toward the above mentioned countries], > you cannot advocate any reasonable policy. If you > don't, then you must concede that your resentment towards the US will > pass, too, and you ought not let that resentment interfere with your > judgment of Greece's national interests, even in the present. I am sure my resentment towards the US _gov't_ will, at some time, be a thing of the past. Being the optimist I am, I'm confident that things _will_ change in the U.S. too, and that its gov't will cease being the world cop and self-designated defender of "Freedom and Democracy". I fail to see, however, why this should prevent me from taking into account the actions of US government in the present. Also, thanks for warning me not to let my resentment interfere with my judgement of my country's national interests. I'll keep that in mind. Now, back to the point in discussion: My claim is that U.S. gov't policies are against Greece's national interests, that essentially the U.S. is using Greece for its own economic, military and political interests. >> PS: An incident that recently arose sheds intriguing light >> to the question of what sort of interests Greece's participation >> in NATO serves. In the NATO War College, in Rome, and in the presence >> of Greek officers, a seminar was held developing a scenario whereby >> a leftist gov't is elected in Greece, resulting in a coup d' etat by >> the Greek army... >> [Oh, I can't stand all those radical pinkos who, through naivete or >> malice, just can't bring themselves to accept the simple fact: >> NATO was set up to defend Freedom and Democracy.] > At NATO installations they constantly game (simulate) different > military situations, including tactical nuclear warfare in West > Germany, civil war in Poland, and sabotage of industry by the French > and Italian Communist Parties. Does this mean that they foresee > (or act to bring about) such events? Conspiracies everywhere... Well, let me tell you: they DID act to bring about such events. When? In 1967. Where? In Greece. You may, like the generals, call these preparations "simulations" and "games" but people who saw them materialise don't find them quite so amusing, nor take them quite as light-heartedly. > The fundamental problem is that the Greek political body is highly > polarized with very few basic policies reached by national consensus. > It is this which makes Greek democracy more fragile than most other > Western ones, not some simulation by Americans, Italians, Germans, and > Belgians whose plausibility is derived from recent Greek history. I see. The Greek military dictatorship was imposed because the Greek political body was "highly polarized". I seem to recall this is what the colonels said too, when they usurped political power: They did it to bring about "peace and order". I always wondered if that was their real motivation, but since now you -- a dispassionate and rational observer of political events -- claim this to be the case, I guess that must be why they did it. It had nothing to do with their being in the payroll of the CIA, or havin gotten their military (and "political") training in the US. Yes, yes, now I see the light. How naive of me to have been seeing conspiracies everywhere...