ANNA KARAMANOU: THE EU's SOCIAL MODEL NEEDS TO BE MODERNISED

NEWSPAPER "THESSALIA"

Interview with Sotiris Letsios

02.02.2003

The priority of the Greek Presidency is to respond to the call for the advancement of the EU's international role and social profile. PASOK Euro-MP Mrs. Anna Karamanou stresses this point, and adds that the EU's social model needs modernizing. Mrs. Karamanou voices her concerns about issues concerning women and the promotion of gender equality, and says that Europe shall be judged by its ability to promote fresh ideas and alternative solutions to modern-day problems. Mrs. Karamanou states that this is not the first time she sides in favour of lifting the ban against women visiting the monastic community at Mt. Athos, adding that she receives many messages in support of her stance. "I am courageous enough to go as far as to question taboo matters, such as the ban", she says. She expresses the conviction that slowly but surely the foundations for the total separation of Church and State are being laid.

- For many people, the undertaking of the present EU Presidency is the most crucial for Europe's future. How should Greece act if it is to respond successfully to the demands of the European nations?

Indeed, the fourth Greek Presidency comes at a crucial time both for the European Union and for our country. It commences under the shadow of an impending war. I do think however, that the Presidency's priorities are in total accord with the EU citizens' demand for the advancement of both the international role and the social profile of the Union. The formalization of the greatest expansion in the history of United Europe, which appears to be leading to the resolution of the Cyprus issue, is undoubtedly the greatest challenge at the present juncture. Greece shall be at the helm of the Presidency when on April 16 the accession agreements of the ten new member-states will be signed in the shadow of the Acropolis.

I should like to focus for a few moments on the modernization of the social model which is being advanced via the application of the Lisbon Strategy. Indeed, the advancement of women's participation in the job market, the eradication of trafficking in human beings, the adoption of a common asylum and immigration policy, the formulation of common principles, and the incorporation of legal immigrants in the societies of member-states, are all a dire necessity. What worries me though, is the direction in which the discussion on the institutional reform of the EU is headed - an issue to be concluded during the Greek Presidency. When it comes to the Union's new constitution, certain quarters are trying to prevent the inclusion of the obligations the EU has assumed concerning the advancement of gender equality. These obligations have already been secured by all EU Treaties. I fear that if these views are to prevail, they will lead to very adverse developments for European women and undermine the protection of human rights within the Union. I hope that the specific proposals I addressed in my capacity as chairwoman of the Committee for Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities to the President of the Assembly for the future of Europe, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, will be heard. 

The only point on which I would like to express my objection is the emphasis laid in your question on the crucial role of this particular presidency. We must not forget that Greece has also been at the helm of the Union during other difficult times in the past, and I believe it proved worthy of its role every time. I do not believe in unique opportunities and challenges. I think that this time too, the Greek Presidency shall contribute greatly to the course of European integration. 

- A few days ago, the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, spoke of an "aged Europe", a Europe which is unable to keep up with developments. Are we indeed about to witness, as has been claimed by many, the manifestation of the most serious crisis in EU-US relations since World War II?

I think we are indeed beginning to live in the post-Cold War era. During the Cold War it was considered unthinkable for an ally to differentiate its position from the formal position of the alliance in which it participated. Today however, the fear of the opposite power, the centripetal force which held this concord together, no longer exists. Thus, the countries of Europe feel free to express their concerns regarding actions they disagree with, and have begun to assert their independence. Naturally, this is not going down well with the Americans. I think that it would be a huge success for United Europe were it to voice independent political views regarding international affairs, via a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Unfortunately, despite some positive steps that have been taken, such as the appointment of Mr. Solana as Senior Representative, prospects do not seem very favourable at the present time, especially following the disagreement which ensued over a possible war against Iraq.

As far as the "aged Europe" is concerned, I shall disagree with Mr. Rumsfeld's views. The countries which are opposed to the intervention in Iraq are countries with extensive experience in crisis management and the formulation of foreign policy. In contrast, the intervention tactics followed by the USA in the course of the last few years have not resulted in the peace they have been preaching, but have caused pain and misery to thousands of people, mainly women and children. It is natural that the aggressive policy of the US should be the object of criticism. In any case, the aged continent shall be judged by its ability to promote young ideas and alternative solutions to modern-day problems. It shall primarily be judged by its ability to mediate for the resolution of disputes by peaceful means, advancing a culture of peace as opposed to the American model of violence.

- Another serious current issue is the discussion concerning the ban against women visiting the monastic community at Mt. Athos. Have you met with support in Greece for your demand that the ban be lifted?

It is not the first time that I side in favour of lifting the ban. I think you would be interested in reading an earlier letter I addressed to Archbishop Christodoulos, in which the matter of the ban is discussed among other issues. Every time there is publicity about this subject there ensues a torrent of reactions. I do however receive many messages of support from people who believe that there are no issues and traditions above human rights, people who agree that as our society and its values progress, such major issues should be re-examined within the framework of a sober dialogue. The problem is that these people cannot find a forum from which to voice their views. Many, who do have access to the means, are reluctant to pay the price of questioning a status quo, a taboo matter. I can understand their stance. I just happen to have enough courage to question taboo matters such as the ban, which constitutes an unacceptable discrimination against women.

- Do you think that today there is the necessary political consensus in Greek society to create the climate which would lead to the separation of Church and State?

First of all, we should define the kind of separation we are talking about. To a large extent there is already separation between Church and State. Greece is not a theocratic state. Decisions are taken by the government. It is simply a question of settling certain unresolved matters concerning the distribution of roles in some areas. So I believe that slowly but steadily the foundations for a total separation between the Church and the State are being laid. The Church is an institution with traditional links to the Greek nation, has contributed to Greek history, and it is therefore natural that it should exercise considerable influence on Greek society. As long as our society is progressing however, the rule of secular law is becoming stronger. I believe that the abolition of the requirement for citizens' religious creed to be included in identity cards was a very significant step, since the state succeeded in ascertaining its exclusive right to determine the information it needs to know about its citizens. The Church was defeated in this matter both in the European Court (to which it appealed), and in the minds of most Greeks. So, I believe we are on the right track. 

- In view of the events taking place in the Greek political scene, what are your views on the course of the government's actions? The Prime Minister seems disappointed with the performance of high-ranking officials. 

I do not agree with your view. My experience in the European Parliament is very different. For example, in the latest presentation of the Greek Presidency's priorities, the Greek ministers left the best impressions, coming across as able, convincing and effective. I think that our internal problems are related to the fact that the current government is in the middle of an extremely difficult four-year period, during which many and difficult "bets" have been made (EMU, the EU Presidency, the Olympic Games, efforts to improve citizens' every-day life). Meanwhile, the people, acting in accordance with a basic marketing principle, require constant change and place their hopes on anything "new". When the crucial moment arrives however, I believe that they shall judge rationally and favour those they consider more trustworthy and capable of running the country.