 |  |  |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
| | |
| Return to: Left History: a digital archive | Return to: Say no to imperialist wars! | Return to: NATO-Yugoslav War Internet Resources |
Q: You are preparing a 'warm' reception for Mr Clinton, more so than for Mr Bush [in 1991]. Are the messages he bears so bad in your opinion?
AP: I am certain that the majority of the Greek people are well aware that the post-war history of Greece has had tragic, bloody incidents that were brought about by U.S. governments (whether the president was a Democrat or a Republican). It is widely known that Greece, through its governments, has been proven to play the role of advance guard in the U.S. anti-socialist campaign. But that's not all. The U.S. is directly responsible not only for its role in the Greek Civil War, but also for the cruel post-civil-war regime, for the persecutions and executions of Communists, for the Cyprus situation, for the 7-year dictatorship, and for the transformation of our country into a U.S. base with nuclear weapons. And, of course, we must not forget the dirty war against Yugoslavia, or the very dangerous 'Stability Agreement' for south-eastern Europe which recognises the leading role of the U.S. in continuing the war in the Balkans by other means, but also by force of arms if necessary.
But we wouldn't be serving history, or the truth that is known today, if we found an opportunity to let off steam against Clinton, thereby acquitting, some deliberately and some not, the other 'European partners', who have legalised the U.S. presence and intervention throughout Europe from the end of World War II up to the present time.
Yes, the Greek people must show not only their feelings, but also their political will to oppose the imperialists and their leaders.
Q: Nevertheless, it is not for reasons of history alone that you are calling people to mobilise. Your recent announcements speak of dangers and threats. I'd like to discuss that with you.
: Bill Clinton is coming to point out, albeit in a symbolic way, that he holds Greece 'in the palm of his hand', provoking the Greek people who are not willing to be pawns of the U.S. or any other imperialist. He is coming to demand that the secret agreements he has already concluded with the Greek government be made official and public. These agreements are related to: the consolidation of U.S. domination in the Aegean, and the perpetuation of the dispute of Greek frontiers, since neither of the two governments are dogmatic with respect to borders, as has already been said. Moreover, he wants to receive the message that the non-dogmatic Greek government is prepared and willing to disregard our people's feelings and political experience, and to guarantee that it will be a good broker for U.S. interests. And that it will proceed perhaps to a Greek-Turkish agreement that will secure peaceful competition between Greek and Turkish plutocrats, and common action in the looting that is taking place in the Balkans. They want peace between the two governments, but they're not at all interested in the peace that the two peoples want and need.
Q: You have in the past warned against U.S. solutions, with European consent, in the Aegean and Cyprus. What makes you believe that such solutions would be to the detriment of national interests and of existing treaties?
AP: I could say that today many people in Greece (parties, people active in the political and social realm who keep up with events, journalists, researchers and diplomats) know that the President of the U.S. will not be bringing any good messages about the Aegean and Cyprus. It is hardly accidental that in discussions with officials across the full spectrum of the political world, nobody denies what Clinton, i.e. the U.S. leadership, wants: they just say that it is not in our interest to oppose them! Judging by what has happened so far, we all know that the Cyprus issue has been transformed from an international problem of the invasion and occupation of a sovereign state, for which the U.S. is to blame, into a Greek-Turkish issue, into a problem of the co-existence of the two communities. Regarding the Aegean, we all know that Turkish demands are supported by the U.S. and others. Who can believe that the 'high level' visitor will arrive bearing totally different messages, having become a dove of peace instead of a butcher?
Q: Do you believe it's possible for Greece to dodge the U.S. interest when there is no fear of the adversary to back her up?
AP: I don't believe that the Simitis government wants to dodge U.S. domination. All governments that we have known, irrespective of whether they had a more or less European orientation, have willingly served U.S. plans. Who believes that they have done this for the benefit of the people? For their own good, yes; for the good of the oligarchy, yes. Don't forget that in Greece the political leaders and the plutocracy were able to retain their domination WITH THE DIRECT ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE U.S. The issue of 'dodging' both the United States of America and the 'United States of Europe' is a matter for the Greek people to decide. The issue depends on the correlation of forces. We say that we can change it, and consequently we select our friends and allies, and say NO when we have to. Otherwise subservience will become the official world view of the people, which we don't believe will ever happen.
Let me remind you of this: When the fear of the adversary, i.e. the socialist system, existed, those who today justify complying with U.S. orders, offering the argument that the other system no longer exists, acted in the same way when it did. Even when the socialist system existed, they didn't dare refuse U.S. bases or NATO armaments. The issue boils down to what you do for your country, and not waiting for the opportunity to drop from heaven.
Q: Will you shake the U.S. President's hand or have a discussion with him, if he expresses a desire to meet with party leaders?
AP: We are not two-faced. We couldn't possibly hold a demonstration on the one hand, and then, on the other, shake Mr Clinton's hand and drink to his health.
The impression has been created that, even though the parties of the broader Left (meaning the CPG, the Synaspismos and DIKKI), in the case of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the visit of Clinton to Athens, are finding a way to communicate among themselves, even with difficulty, they are unable to find common points for a minimum programme of reforms in Greece which could possibly be useful. Is this so difficult?
It is well known - at least to those who keep abreast of developments and who are interested in knowing what every party is doing, not just the party they vote for - that we did not hesitate to salute the stance of the parties that condemned the war and Greece's participation in it. It is also positive for political forces to object to the Clinton visit. However developments as a whole will not change to the benefit of the peoples, of the Greek people and of peace, when a party or parties confine themselves to opportunistic reactions to top events. This is good but it's not enough. The point is what each party does BEFORE THE EVENTS OCCUR AND AFTERWARDS. Any positive activities developed by parties, such as those you mention, become blurred and later even invalidated if they fail to reveal to the people the real nature of the so-called peace plan for Kosovo, if they do not continue the mobilisations against our country's participation in the modern death and occupation squads, i.e. the rapid deployment forces. When not only do they fail to dissociate themselves from the imperialist plan to partition the Balkans under the spurious name of 'Stability Agreement' for south-eastern Europe, but actually support this framework, and even make proposals to the Greek government about how it can play a more active role.
I have cited these examples in order to say simply that it is not enough today to be AGAINST some issues; what every party regards as the alternative and response to today's sharpened problems is also important. The CPG has always believed firmly in the rallying together of the people and in socio-political co-operation. Other parties may also believe in or put forward a general position of this kind for various reasons, whether to fall into line with the popular psychology, to hide their real positions, or to blame some other party for the fact that the collaboration does not proceed. Our cards are on the table for all to see, we don't hide behind proposals for co-operation, knowing in advance that it can never happen because of existing serious disagreements. The point is not who suggests co-operation and who refuses it, but what kind of co-operation is intended and what is the party's aim in proposing it and that of another saying that the co-operation in question will not help the popular movement. Co-operation is beneficial when it constitutes an alternative. Otherwise, not only will there be no benefit for the people, but there will be disappointment. In other words, we support a Cupertino which is clearly opposed to the causes of the problems, i.e. to monopoly capital, and imperialist choices.
From there on is the stage of glory: common action in the social movements. This is where we shall be judged at this point, not on slogans about Co-operation. The question of Co-operation, owing to its complexity and seriousness, and owing to its strategic importance for developments in our country, should not be used as an election campaign device.
Q: In the elections, as can be seen from the early indications of the campaign, the climate will be sharply polarised. Do you see any danger of a reduction in the CPG's percentage of the popular vote and how will you deal with it?
AP: These elections, like all election campaigns, will be for us a significant political battle, but as part of the total developments and processes in which the people must intervene independently. Polarisation in election battles is a common event both for us and for the people, in the sense that it is in the interest of the political forces aspiring to power at the expense of the people to distract their attention from essential matters and to cloud the issues generally. The people have experience and must use it in the forthcoming elections, chiefly in order not to legalise a policy which feeds profits, changes frontiers, but keeps the people with a knife at their throat. We will conduct our election activities calmly; we are not interested in 'putting on a show'. We're going to keep telling the people that our road isn't an easy one, but it is a correct and just road for the people. There are no solutions to problems without sacrifices, struggles, and conflict. Sacrifices along the road of struggle are preferable to sacrifices on the road of conciliation and compromise. In addition to the votes of Communist men and women, we shall try and attract voters from among all those who want to set themselves apart from the policy of PASOK and ND, who don't want to live with delusions and fatalism. It's important that the people who are going to cast their vote for us know what party they're voting for; they know who we are and where we're going. And above all, they know that they can engage in struggles with us and in the cause of the Popular Front, without having to agree with us on all issues.
Q: The Prime Minister says that the sacrifices of the citizen during recent years are now producing results and that the time has come for the position of the economically weaker strata to be improved. That is the purpose of the measures he has announced. Doesn't this make your position somewhat difficult?
AP: Government policy has certainly borne fruit. This can be seen on the lists indicating that in Greece big capital shows the highest profits in Europe, or is at least in the front ranks of profitability.
Government policy has borne fruit, e.g. in the war in the Balkans, in supporting the policy of 'divide and rule'. It has been effective in increasing the phenomena of corruption, bribery and terrorism.
Why should the CPG be afraid of such fruit? The point is for the people to draw their own conclusions, and mainly to believe that THERE IS ANOTHER ROAD.