11/10/2020

THE GHOST OF MUNICH

 I don't know why I do this to myself, I mean bothering for things others don't or at least not as much as I do but here my translation of a spot on Greek article.

(Side note for my Turkish friends: I know that the regime you experience like any regime doesn't allow much space to breath. However, you should never forget that it leads you to no space to breath at all at the end of the road, if it hasn't already actually. If you have any doubts remember Hitler. Then you'll think twice about staying idle. Good luck.)
THE GHOST OF MUNICH
After the 2nd World War west democracies tried to interpret the"Shame of Munich" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement ). They actually tried to comprehend how two strong states like UK and France submitted without a fight to the superficial plans of a maniac Austrian lance corporal.
Weird as it sounds, they didn't include in their analysis the military power of each counterpart. On September 1938 those two democratic states where still much stronger than the fast developing Germany.
So why they did that? What scared them? Historians converged in 3 reasons:
First, there was a general tension for appeasement. This summarised a mix of feelings: Elites admiring Hitler's achievements, guilts about the way German was treated after the 1st World War, financial interests, ideological pacifism etc.
Second, the inmost calculation that if Germany was satisfied by the West then communistic Russia would be next and Germans would do the dirty job for the West democracies.
Third, (and maybe most important) was the fear of war. Not just fear of losing a war but fear of fighting in the first place. West democracies had already paid a high death toll in the last one and they didn't want to start all over again. Besides, they had won so there was no revenge attitude. (Tim Bouverie, Appeasing Hitler, The Bodley Head, London 2019)
The phamous phrase from Churchill in the British Parliament after Nevil Chamberlain's return warned the latter: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
Mutatis mutandis, it's the same feelings and thoughts of Europe while facing Erdogan's Turkey today:
* A (pseudo) alibi of fair play but mainly trade "Turks have some rights too, Greeks and Cypriots shouldn't want all for themselves"
* The inmost calculations that they will manage to turn Turkey against Putin's Russia
* Fear of conflict
Churchill's phrase totally applies here. If you dishonour yourself in order to avoid the fight you will remain dishonoured and won't avoid the fight.
What prevailed in Munich (also what made this agreement a failure) is the exact same political plan that is developing today considering Turkey. In other words the feeling that the latter will be appeased with a few satisfactory arrangements. Hitler's Germany (same as - in a shorter scale -Turkey), was looking for its own enforcement. You must be naive to believe that Turkey fights in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Caucasus and who knows where else just because of disagreement on Kastelorizo's continental shed or the "Map of Seville"!
Of course we now rather face a phase of deescalation. European council's pressure helped on that since (for the first time so clearly) adapted Greece's and Cyprus's rhetoric for the East Med crisis. Turkey had no other options with so many issues open at the same time but won't hesitate to reescalate when conditions allow so. Turkey is committed to strategic choices not to legal abeyances.
By default pre negotiation talks allow both of the above. Hence it's very important to confirm and limit their agenda. Greece insists in a discussion exclusively about the limits of the water zones. K. Mitsotakis repeated this last Tuesday in front of (Turkish oriented) Jens Stoltenberg while the same articulate wording has been included in the conclusions of the European council. Turkey on the opposite speaks about "dialogue without preconditions" implying that there's more to put on the table but no one knows exactly which ones. Even the few domestic supporters of a wide agenda have lost counting. (References to domestic journalists). M. Cavousoglu placed 4 of them ("Kathimerini" 15/9)
This discussion is obviously rather pretentious. It is profound that the table of negotiations can host only the issues that both sides agree that they require resolution. There is no such thing other than the water zones at the moment. It is impossible for either side to arrange something on its own neither can force others to arrange something they don't think it needs to.
Widening the agenda is just a pretext. Either to help Turkey leave the table in the risk of not taking what was expected or to create a longer catalogue of issues that will allow the "referee" or court to "split" the result.
Greece on the other hand has every reason to aim an agenda exclusively on issues where the country is legally strong and obviously has no reason to offer escape to the other side. In other words, no one wants conflict. However, as Churchill would say, the one who'll be dishonoured in the eyes of others in order to avoid it, will chose dishonour and will be beaten by the others.

No comments:

Post a Comment