The Alternate Minister of National Defence Dimitris Vitsas in an interview that he gave on Tuesday, 18 April, 2017, on SKAI TV stated, among other things:

About the referendum in Turkey:

We have no reason to be involved in Turkey’s internal affairs. We have seen the result of the referendum which may produce many results. Of course, we will watch them and wish turkey to be oriented to the solution of its internal issues which are crucial – in an economy that faces difficulties – and to start solving them. This requires a stable and very prudent policy in relation to the problem it faces with its neighbouring countries because, over the last years, Turkey has developed a rhetoric which does not help its foreign relations.

After the referendum, another crucial issue is the manner in which the leadership will manage the result of the referendum and the manner in which Mr. Erdogan and his party will try to unite these powers. This will be very important for the future developments in Turkey.

If there is also a referendum for death penalty, it will not be something to worry about, but we say that such a referendum should not take place. It has to do with International Law, with the manner in which the democratic and civilized countries have been developed. For us, it is to our benefit if Turkey is a democratic country oriented towards Europe and follows a policy of cooperation.

Over the last period, there was a tense rhetoric with the European Union and many attributed it to the referendum. However, what one says each time, may create a situation at the level of social conscience which will later require certain things. So, the problem is how to handle it from now on. Some first statements were the same with the previous ones. The sooner this situation abates, the more this is to the benefit of Turkey and Europe. If Turkey considers that it is a matter of “national courage” to say that it will break its relations with Europe or that it has a great controversy, this will not be to the benefit of Turkey and, in reflection, it will not be to the benefit of the stability in the area.

The issue for Turkey is how to unite everybody on a common base. There are islamists, there are kemalists, there are Kurds. The common ground, under the present circumstances, is the living conditions.  Whoever thinks, as it was also proven by the referendum in Turkey, that by raising issues of religion or irredentism can achieve the desired result is wrong, in my opinion. There is no reason, in our political debate or in our social debates to favour extreme tendencies. I am not speaking only of turkey, but of Europe and Greece as well.

About the EU-Turkey agreement on the refugee issue:

The agreement on the refugee issue will not be changed. It is to the benefit of Turkey too and this is important. I hope that greater calmness and peace will prevail in Turkey, particularly on its eastern borders. From there on, the manner in which the leadership of Turkey will express itself, the manner in which it will behave after the result of the referendum and the high percentage of “no” votes, is something that one should follow, yet not reach quick conclusions.

About the relations of Greece and Turkey:

Our policy towards Turkey is clear: Cyprus must be united independent state without any guarantor forces. This is a disagreement which is discussed by Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots. The second point is that we want a framework of cooperation, friendship etc. The third one is that all this must be done according to International Law and international agreement. No possibilities of threats can be tolerated regarding our national sovereignty.

About armaments and defence expenses:

We set our own strategic base according to three notions: sobriety, readiness, decisiveness. From there on, the involvement in a race of armaments will not reach any results and aggravates the whole situation. Yet there is no compliance either. There are also other possibilities and these are that we apply. They are related to how we command our defence forces in total, how we form their training and how we form the weapon systems at a level of maintenance, upgrade and targeted purchases, and not to a race of armaments. The main issue is the diplomatic field and the creation of stability in the interior of our country, which should come from end of the supervision.

On the issues of defence and armaments we have achieved with as less as possible money to produce the best possible result. In 2009, we had a budget of 6 billion euro for the Ministry of National Defence and in 2017 we have 3 billion euro. There are, of course, requirements of the alliances in which we participate. On one hand, they ask 2% of the GDP to be spent for defence expenses and on the other hand they ask for budget cuts. At this moment, we are on the limit including also the pensions of the officers. Being under supervision does not help any country to plan a strategic framework. So, the sooner we are over with the financial measures, keeping our society strong, the better.

The pay cuts of Officers and NCOs’ salaries during the period of the financial austerity measures has been over 35%. It did not happen over the last two years, but this does not matter. I am considering how one man lives. It is the same with retired officers too. There are certain changes which we are trying to promote; namely, the quick payment of the pensions. We also have a broad project for military houses which technically offers an enhancement of the salary.

About the stance of the IMF:

The issue of the participation of IMF in the programme exists since 2015. It is time – the Spring summit is on 21-23 April – for some decisions to be made there or shortly after it. The debt, as it is now, is not sustainable. This does not mean that I agree with the IMF if it says that a number of additional social expenses cuts is required for the debt to be sustainable.

We have accepted and negotiated what we consider as measures and counter-measures which we can achieve after 2019, because for 2017 and 2018 there are no measures. At this point, however, we have the main problem of the debt. For this reason, we have said that they all must form one package.

We have a schedule in front of us: the technical units are coming, the issue of the evaluation is technically solved, it has been politically solved. The main principles of the medium-term measures for the debt are being set because the short-term measures have already been taken. The banking system is in the procedure of Quantitative Easing and is reinforced. The high instalment of 2017 will be settled in summer 2017. There is stability; conditions that can help us focus on principal issues, such as investments and unemployment.

It is in the next period that every part must make decisions for them. The IMF must decide whether it participates or not in the programme. It is a busy period but we have done our job.

Measures and counter-measures go are combined, so that a solution for the debt will be found and, in this spirit, we will move forward.
What must be submitted to the Parliament will be submitted. Some things are not required to be discussed in the Parliament, but the measures and counter-measures must be submitted to the Parliament. One does not vote for them, but agrees on them, for example, on the medium term programme.

We are thinking, we are discussing all the issues that can form the financial base of a policy for the reduction of unemployment.

The World Bank usually works in developing countries under conditions. The only thing that we do not need right now is to assume more commitments.