The Alternate Minister of National Defence Dimitris Vitsas was interviewed by periodico.gr and journalists Iasonas Pipinis and Amalia Kolonelou.
The US Ambassador stated he is worried about the possibility of a heated incident in the Aegean. Is the Greek government worried about it, are you doing something about it?
Having watched the speech of the US Ambassador, we can examine his remark from many points of view. I am not focusing on the panic or concern part, but on seeing what we can do to minimize the possibility of an accident.
From our point of view we have clearly stressed that we need to handle the situation with temperance, determination and reservation. Practically this means that we are following a different policy, we are not pretending not to see things but at the same time we have never followed and aggressive policy, and we never will.
Right now we abide by the policy that each time there is an FIR violation we will answer it, each time there is a fabricated tension, we will highlight it and simultaneously we will internationalise actions which we believe “threaten” our national sovereignty.
What do we mean by that? That we have allies, as a matter of fact common allies with the neighbouring country. What we are asking is to have at international fora a voice stating that there is International Law which needs be respected and the sovereignty of a state which also should be respected. This in fact lowers the possibility of an accident.
Let’s look at both dimensions of the issue. We shouldn’t be highlighting the accident possibility but we should be talking about malevolent activities. Secondly, the EU itself should apply the concept that the eastern borders of Greece are the eastern borders of Europe, and we have other issues as well apart from the violations issue, for example the migrant issue, etc.
Thirdly, pertaining to this procedure, it should become clear to the creditors that there is a number of expenses especially at the MoD which result from the fact that there is a possible threat.
Here’s the most simple of examples. When there is a violation we deal with a respective deterrence. Allow me to highlight the fact that this is costly.
You mentioned the word temperance and that it is important to reduce the possibility of an accident. The statement by Mr. Kammenos and I quote “If the Turks set a foot on Imia let’s see how they will make their way out”, is aiming at what direction?
This statement should not be isolated, it should be examined from a more generic point of view.
For us there are no grey zones in the Aegean, our borders are impregnable and our Armed Forces are always ready based on their constitutional duty to defend them.
This is the generic context I am talking about. Take for example the word temperance I used. What does it mean? That you need a clear head to assess the situation and when you do that you realize that a series of violations and fabricated tensions have a specific objective. And this objective has to do with the interior situation of Turkey, not just the referendum. We are talking about a country deeply hurt by the coup attempt and let me not go off at a tangent on this, What’s happening at its southern and eastern borders is the most important thing and how you assess how possible is the realization of what’s being said.
Being cool and reserved means that making an assessment of the situation you process multiple scenarios for which you make respective plans.
Do you believe that the Simitis government made a mistake in the way it managed the Imia situation back in 1996? That said, the war in the Aegean was prevented.
My answer is very simple. Ask anyone in uniform what happened back then and they will say the whole situation was extremely complaisant, something I don’ t agree with.
I don’t mean that war should have broken out, on the contrary, I mean that there was no preventive policy, I cannot be sure if there was a military preparation to manage such a crisis, looking at the newspapers of the time you will realize that .
When we start talking about flags being flown away by the wind and a series of other things, and when the ministers of the time were being interviewed as the crisis was underway you understand that there was no preparation. I am no saying that they didn’t want to be prepared, they simply weren’t.
Since earlier you mentioned the cost what is to happen of the F-35s? Will you proceed with their purchase?
Discussions are held for discussions’ sake. We have decided to upgrade the fleet of fighter aircraft, most of which are F-16s.This is our priority . What we have been doing all this time has to do with these upgrades and how they will go hand in hand with the financial context of our era.
It’s quite reasonable when there is a new weapon, a new aircraft you want to know as much as possible about it, to see how useful it is, what are your financial capabilities etc, because we missed the chance to enter this program…My point of view is that we should have entered this program, without judging former governments for not doing so. I am quite familiar with this program now and how it is progressing from the US government point of view, I know that our finances are dire, even if we had the money the procedure would be long.
I repeat what the national defence industry strategy dictates, which was also voted by the Governmental Council of Foreign Affairs and Defence, that when you proceed with a purchase you are not concerned only with the cost but with the shelf life of the product. Right now we are talking about vast amounts of money which right no we cannot afford. Are there any other funding tools? I am not quite sure.
We are sticking to the fact that this would be a brave action and the upgrade of our fighter aircraft fleet will further-armour our defence , I am not talking about the upgrade of the F16s, but the upgrade of the whole fleet, within, however, our fiscal capabilities.
