7th Annual SEESOX Ambassadors' Forum

On 6 June, in St Antony’s College, Oxford, SEESOX hosted its annual lunch for the Ambassadors of the countries of South East Europe posted in London: the seventh such gathering. A number of topical issues affecting the region were discussed.

In view of the Bulgarian, Romanian and forthcoming Croatian Presidencies of the EU, there was consideration of what the obligations of the rotating Presidency meant for the newer member states of the Union, and how Embassies prepared themselves for these. This led into a discussion of the experiences of longer-term member-states including Austria and Greece.

The successful solution of the Macedonia name dispute was noted and applauded, with an assessment of how the agreement had been reached, and implications for the two countries directly concerned, the region and the EU. This led to a wider discussion of the direction and future of the Union, with a strong focus on the merits of making progress on enlargement. This should not await the prior deepening of the monetary union.

Social movements in Greece between past and present

SEESOX co-sponored a conference in Athens on Friday 5 and Saturday 6 April, 2019 at Deree – The American College of Greece. The two-day conference was co-organized by University of Sheffield, University of Exeter, SEESOX, University of Peloponnese, and hosted by The American College of Greece and its Institute of Global Affairs.

Report by Kostis Kornetis
The conference entitled “Greek Social Movements between past and present”, held at DEREE College, Athens, April 5-6, 2019 brought together social scientists, psychologists and anthropologists to discuss grassroots mobilisation in Greece on left and right from 1974 to the present day. It was co-organised by the University of Sheffield, Pierce DEREE Institute, SEESOX, the University of Exeter and the University of the Peloponnese.

The first panel, on “The past and present concept”, adopted a long-term perspective, looking at longer stretches of time to understand current political attitudes, using different approaches and tools: political science, memory studies and social psychology. Marilena Simiti gave a comprehensive story of social activism in Greece between 1974 and 2015, looking at various cycles of protest and changes over time, including a growing transnationalisation of protest, a growing fluidity and heterogeneity of collective identities and non-state centric forms of action. Through an analysis of the student, feminist, ecological, antiglobalisation and square movements, she looked at protest complementing electoral policies. Beginning from the post-junta student movements (bearing the influence of the political parties of the time) the paper ended up with the squares in 2011 that signified a waning of the left-right cleavage and the emergence of a new division between memorandum and anti-memorandum. Eirini Karamouzi and Lamprini Rori combined history with quantitative political science in a longitudinal analysis – in the context of framing theory. The paper brought original questions to the field of anti-Americanism, including how anti-Americanism was linked to pro-Sovietism or pro-Russianism, whether belonging to the Right or Left made a difference, whether party affiliation played a role, and to what extent collective memory over critical events is a driver to adopting an anti-American stance. The paper showed that whereas anti-Americanism was party specific or Left specific until 1993, from then on until 2005 it became widespread. It also argued that collective memory about the past is fading over time. Lastly, the paper by Nikos Takis, Angeliki Skamvetsaki and Vilma Papasavva used tools connected to psychoanalysis and trauma analysis to test the applicability of psychoanalytical theory on the Greek civil war and transgenerational trauma transmission. The paper argued that a resurgence of past trauma occurred during the economic crisis years, boosted and instrumentalised to a large extent by SYRIZA, which insisted on the presence of the memory of the 1940s, using past symbols and frames to polarise.

Britain as a model? Turkish politicians’ perceptions of the UK

Dr Yaprak Gürsoy (Aston University), formerly a visiting academic at SEESOX, presented her ongoing research on June 5 2019. Dr Gürsoy’s project is funded by the British Institute at Ankara, an affiliate of the British Academy.

Gürsoy’s research focuses on Turkish politicians’ perceptions of the UK. During the first phase of the project, she carried out extensive elite interviews and analysed the parliamentary minutes of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA). While she presented her initial findings from the years 2011-2015, she noted that she was still continuing with the qualitative content analysis.

Gürsoy underlined that the period between 2011-2015 has been marked by important shifts in Turkish politics. Over this period, the AKP was in government with an overwhelming majority. However, the political climate had begun to change. The Gezi events in 2013 represented an unprecedented level of opposition against the AKP government, while the Syrian civil war and its side-effects on Turkey had affected Turkish politics.

Gürsoy then explained the rationale of the project, indicating that, especially after 2016, Anglo-Turkish relations have gained a new importance. Prime Minister Theresa May visited Ankara, President Erdoğan visited London, and the then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson visited Turkey immediately after the 2016 botched coup attempt. While in the post-2016 period Turkey’s relations with most Western countries had deteriorated, Britain had been the notable exception. Turkey is a country of interest for Britain, especially if Brexit materialises, but Britain is also very important for Turkey for various reasons. The Turkish economy is in a precarious state and the financial sector in London is particularly important for Turkish markets. It is in this context that it is important to examine how Turkish decision-makers perceive Britain. Do they hold a positive or negative view? Which issues dominate their views of Britain?

Greece in the post-memoranda era: What next?

The 2019 SEESOX Annual Lecture was given by Nikolaos Karamouzis, President of Grant Thornton, Greece, Former Chairman of the Board of Eurobank, Emeritus Professor at the University of Piraeus, and Chair of the SEESOX Hellenic Advisory Board. The lecture offered timely insights into the future of the Greek economy as it resurfaces after many years of EU and IMF memoranda and programmes.

Mr Karamouzis first reviewed the Greek experience of the past few years. GDP fell from 250 billion euros in 2008 to only 185 billion now. The Greek crisis was of unprecedented depth, length and social cost, challenging social cohesion. Unemployment rose from 7% to 27%, private investment fell to one third of pre-crisis levels, and the population fell by half a million due to emigration and a decline in fertility rates. Poverty levels rose to above 30% on the EU’s measure.

Some of this could have been avoided. The competitiveness and fiscal crises were allowed to spill on to the financial side. Banks lost half their deposits—a bigger fall than in Argentina. There were three major capital increases, as capital of the banking system fell from 60 billion euros to zero. NPLs rose to 107 billion euros; even today they account for 45% of total portfolios. The Eurozone institutions stepped in twice, in 2012 and 2105, to keep the banking system working.

North Macedonia: The logic of the solution

On the 15^th of May, Nikos Kotzias, former Foreign Minister of Greece and Professor at the University of Piraeus, delivered a lecture entitled “North Macedonia: The logic of the solution” on the Macedonian name deal and how the two sides, the Greek and the then Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, came to a successful conclusion. Having Nikos Kotzias, the main architect of the name deal from the Greek side as a speaker at SEESOX, was a rare opportunity to listen to his personal account of the opportunities, the challenges, the process, and the lessons learned that led to a final deal in one of the most intractable foreign policy issues of post-1989 Greece.

Kotzias began by dividing foreign policy approaches into “active” and “passive”, the former aiming at reaching conclusions to foreign policy problems, and the latter leaving matters open-ended. He then went on to argue that a foreign policy which tries to find solutions has to look for compromise, otherwise it ends up prolonging inactivity and becoming hostage to political cost. As Foreign Minister, Kotzias argued that he tried to pursue an active foreign policy on a number of lingering foreign policy matters including the Cyprus issue, Albanian historical bilateral disputes and the Macedonian name deal; it was in the last that he managed to achieve results and agree on a solution with the other side. According to Kotzias, the long-term inability to find a solution with Greece’s northern neighbour had led to a “lose-lose” situation between the two countries, allowing third parties to benefit from the situation at the expense of these two neighbours. Seen in this light, the Macedonian name dispute was becoming a matter of significant geopolitical weight, leading to Turkey’s intrusive role in the then FYROM, competition between the US and Russia over NATO membership, or the long-term fear of the dismemberment of the country.

South East Europe’s diaspora: The dark side

On 8 May SEESOX held a seminar examining the dark side of South East European diasporas. The speakers were Dr Liz David-Barrett of Sussex University, Edrin Gjoni (Community Engagement Officer for the Albanian community, Home Office) and John Howell of JH&Co. David Madden chaired.

Dr David-Barrett described corruption as an abuse of entrusted power. It could be ad hoc/transactional or organised/systemic. Systemic corruption was often associated with clientilist policies which in turn provided opportunities for organised crime groups (OCG). Police, border controls/customs, the judiciary and Ministers/civil service were all in a position to provide services to OCG. In return, OCG could provide services to politicians and public officials: protection/localised ‘security’, favourable media coverage, party/campaign donations, bloc votes etc. What were special about diasporas? She advanced three hypotheses. OCG relationships relied heavily on trust, and transnational diaspora networks helped create such trust: facilitated by shared ethnicity /culture/language and by trust reinforcement mechanisms eg threats to family “back home”. Secondly, OCG relied on access to markets and resources, and diasporas could provide economic opportunities and local knowledge; and were vulnerable to extortion. Third, loyalty and a “small town” mentality, which reduced the readiness to inform on compatriots.

Cypriot and Greek diasporas in comparative perspectives

The Diaspora workshop which took place on Sunday 7 April in Nicosia, Cyprus mainly focused on Cypriot diasporas. The workshop was opened by Isik Kuscu Bonnenfant, who introduced the British Academy funded project titled ‘Reuniting Cyprus: The British Cypriot Diaspora as Peace Agents’. The team is interested to conduct the project by looking into the diasporas as peace agents in the reunification of Cyprus. Some of the core questions of this project that Neophytos Loizides analysed concentrated on the diaspora’s political engagement. Important research questions focus on the participation of the diaspora in a prospective referendum, on diaspora’s representation in the elections, and on the properties issue. Other presentations dealt with different aspects of the relation between diaspora and homeland in conflict. Themes covered were Turkish Cypriot diaspora electoral demands post 2004 (Isik Kuscu and Hayriye Kavheci), the transformation of Turkish Cypriot diaspora in Turkey and student peace activism (Yucel Vural and Ibrahim Ozejder), the role of post-1974 diaspora intellectuals redefining new reunification narratives (Nicos Trimikliniotis), and on the myths surrounding size of Cypriot diasporas (Mete Hatay). Foteini Kalantzi gave a presentation entitled ‘The Greek Diaspora at SEESOX: Homeland – Diaspora Nexus in times of deep economic crisis’ in the panel ‘Cypriot Diasporas in Comparative Perspectives’. She presented the project’s three main areas of investigation, namely the new emigration, diasporic philanthropy and diasporic political engagement. She also spoke of the project’s methodological innovations, namely the survey with the respondent-driven sampling, the commission work and the digital map.