European Expression - Issue 48

52

description

Ευρωπαική Έκφραση - Τεύχος 48

Transcript of European Expression - Issue 48

Page 1: European Expression - Issue 48
Page 2: European Expression - Issue 48
Page 3: European Expression - Issue 48

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

¶ E P I E X O M E N A 1

EYPø¶AIKH EKºPA™Hññ

TPIMHNIAIA EK¢O™H EYPø¶A.I.KOY ¶POB§HMATI™MOYETO™ I¢PY™H™: 1989 ñ ISSN: 1105-8137 ñ EURO 5 ñ ETO™ 13Ô ñ TEYXO™ 48 ñ π∞¡√À∞ƒπ√™ - º∂µƒ√À∞ƒπ√™ - ª∞ƒ∆π√™ 2003

Editorial: ™ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· Ù˘ ÂÈÚ‹Ó˘ ‹ ÛÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ÙÔ˘ Úfi‰Ô˘;.............................3

∫À¶ƒ√™ – ∆√Àƒ∫π∞ – ∂∂

¶. ∫∞∑∞∫√À: ¢‡Ô ÂΉԯ¤˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘.................................................4

∫. ¢π∞ª∞¡∆π∫√À: ∂ÛˆÙÂÚÈΤ˜ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ

Î·È ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ¶ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜......................................................10

µ. ∆∑∂µ∂§∂∫√À: ∏ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘

ÛÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÓˆÛË ˆ˜ ÌÔ¯Ïfi˜ Â›Ï˘Û˘ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡....................13

∂Àƒø¶∞´∫∏ ∫∞π ∞ª∂ƒπ∫∞¡π∫∏ ∂•ø∆∂ƒπ∫∏ ¶√§π∆π∫∏

M. ¶∞¡∞°π∞ƒ∏: Europe’s Common Foreign Policy:

How well is the EU doing? ..........................................................................18

£. ∫√∆™π∞ƒ√™: ∏ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋ Â͈ÙÂÚÈ΋ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋

ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ 11Ë ™ÂÙÂÌ‚Ú›Ô˘.

∆Ô ÙÚ›Ù˘¯Ô ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ .......................23

™À°∫§π™∏ ∂∂

¶. §∞ª¶ƒπ¢∏™: The «Francovich case»: The adjudication of the European

Court of Justice that changed the route of the European Integration ...........28

™. ƒ√¢√∫∞¡∞∫∏™: The European regional policy from 2000 to 2006 .........32

∫√π¡ø¡π∞ ∆ø¡ ¶√§π∆ø¡:

J. WESTHEIMER: What kind of citizen?

The politics of educating for Democracy .....................................................37

∂ƒ∂À¡∞

¶ÚÔÛÂÁÁ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· Ù˘ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢Û˘ ......................................43

µπµ§π√¶∞ƒ√À™π∞™∏.............................................................................46

¡∂∞ ∆∏™ ∂∫ºƒ∞™∏™.............................................................................47

π¢π√∫∆∏™π∞:

∞ÛÙÈ΋ ÌË ÎÂÚ‰ÔÛÎÔÈ΋ ÂÙ·ÈÚ›· "∂˘Úˆ·˚΋

∫ÔÈÓˆÓ›·, ¶ÔÏÈÙÈ΋, ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË, £ÂÛÌÔ›"

√Ì‹ÚÔ˘ 54, ∞ı‹Ó· 106 72∆ËÏ.: +30210 3643223 -4 ñ Fax: 3646953E-mail: [email protected]://www.ekfrasi.gr

∂∫¢√∆∏™ - À¶∂À£À¡√™

™Àªºø¡∞ ª∂ ∆√ ¡√ª√:

¡›ÎÔ˜ °È·ÓÓ‹˜

™Àªµ√À§√™ ∂∫¢√™∏™:

N¿ÓÛ˘ B·ÛÈÏÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘

∞ƒÃπ™À¡∆∞∫∆∂™:

∫ˆÓÛÙ·ÓÙ›ÓÔ˜ ¢È·Ì·ÓÙ›ÎÔ˜¡›ÎÔ˜ πÙÛÈÓ¤˜

∂π¢π∫∏ ™À¡∂ƒ°∞∆∏™:

∂ϤÓË ¢ÂÌ›ÚË

™À¡∂ƒ°∞∆∂™:

°ÂˆÚÁ›· AÛÙڷο ñ N¿ÓÛ˘ B·ÛÈÏÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘ ñµ·ÛÈÏÈ΋ °ÂˆÚÁÈ¿‰Ô˘ ñ ™Ù·‡ÚÔ˜ ∫Ô‡ÚÙ·Ï˘ñ M·Ú›Î· K·Ú·ÁÈ¿ÓÓË ñ KÒÛÙ·˜ §¿‚‰·˜ ñ¢ËÌÔÛı¤Ó˘ M·Ì̈ӿ˜ ñ AÓÙÔ˘·Ó¤ÙÙ· OÈ-ÎÔÓÔÌÔÔ‡ÏÔ˘ ñ °ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ¶·ÁÔ˘Ï¿ÙÔ˜ ñ ÷-Ú¿Ï·ÌÔ˜ ¶··ÛˆÙËÚ›Ô˘ ñ £Âfi‰ˆÚÔ˜ ¶Â-Ï·Á›‰Ë˜ ñ X¿Ú˘ TÛÈÏÈÒÙ˘ ñ £fi‰ˆÚÔ˜ æ·Ï-ÏȉfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜ ñ ¢ËÌ‹ÙÚ˘ ÃÚ˘ÛÔ¯fiÔ˘

∂¶π™∆∏ª√¡π∫∏ ∂¶π∆ƒ√¶∏:

£·Ó¿Û˘ ¢È·Ì·ÓÙfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜ ñ ¶·Ó·ÁÈÒÙ˘ πˆ-·ÎÂÈÌ›‰Ë˜ ñ ¶¿ÓÔ˜ ∫·˙¿ÎÔ˜ ñ ∏Ï›·˜ ∫·ÙÛÔ‡-Ï˘ ñ ∞ÓÙÒÓ˘ ª·ÎÚ˘‰ËÌ‹ÙÚ˘ ñ ™Ù¤ÚÁÈÔ˜M·Ì·Ó¿Û˘ ñ °ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ¶··‰ËÌËÙÚ›Ô˘ ñ∞ÚÁ‡Ú˘ ¶·ÛÛ¿˜ ñ ∫ˆÓ/ÓÔ˜ ™ÙÂÊ¿ÓÔ˘ ñ¶·‡ÏÔ˜ ∆˙ÂÚÌÈ¿˜ ñ Mȯ¿Ï˘ ∆ÛÈÓÈÛÈ˙¤Ï˘ ñ¡›ÎÔ˜ ºÚ·Áο΢

™Àªµ√À§√™ ∂∫¢√™∏™ - ¢∏ª√™π∂™ ™Ã∂™∂π™:

∞ϤͷӉÚÔ˜ §·ÎÂÚ‰¿˜ - À„ËÏ¿ÓÙ˘

ª∂∆∞ºƒ∞™∂π™:

µ. °Î¤Î· ñ ™Ù. ∫·Ú·ı¿ÓÔ˘ ñ ¶. ª·ÏÔÔ‡-ÏÔ˘ ñ ∞‰. ª·ÌԇϷ ñ B. ¶ÔÏ˘˙ˆ›‰Ë

∂¶πª∂§∂π∞ ∂∫¢√™∏™:

¶ÔÏÈÙÈο £¤Ì·Ù· ∂¶∂

™À¡∂ƒ°∞∆∂™ ™∆√ ∂•ø∆∂ƒπ∫√:

Eszter Almassy (µÔ˘‰·¤ÛÙË), ¡›ÎÔ˜ °È·Ó-Ó‹˜ (BڢͤϘ), Ã. ∑Ô˘ÌÔ‡Ï˘ (µÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ),Ronald Meinardus (ª·Ó›Ï·), ™¿‚‚·˜ ¶··-Û¿‚‚·˜ (§Â˘ÎˆÛ›·), Camil Parvu (µÔ˘ÎÔ˘-Ú¤ÛÙÈ), Irina Pavlova (™ÎfiÈ·), Beata Plonka(√˘¿ÛÈÁÎÙÔÓ), Alessandro Stricca (ƒÒÌË), ¢.∆ÚÈ·ÓٷʇÏÏÔ˘ (µÚ˘Í¤ÏϘ), °. ÷Ù˙ËÌ·Ú-ο΢ (µfiÓÓË), °ÈÒÚÁÔ˜ ÷ÈÚ¤Ù˘ (µÂÏÈÁÚ¿-‰È), ¢. ÃÚÈÛÙfiÔ˘ÏÔ˜ (ªÚ›ÛÙÔÏ).

Page 4: European Expression - Issue 48

2 C O N T E N T S

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

EVROPAIKI EKFRASSIQUARTERLY EDITION ON EUROPEAN ISSUES

FIRST PUBLISHED: 1989 ñ ISSN: 1105-8137 ñ EURO 5 ñ YEAR 13 ñ VOL. 48 JUNARY - FEBRUARY - MARCH 2003PROPRIETOR - EDITION:

"European Society, Politics, Expression,

Institutions", non Profit Making Company

54 Omirou St., Athens 106 72

Tel.: +30210 3643223-4 Fax: +30 1 3646953

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.ekfrasi.gr

EDITOR - PUBLISHER BY LAW:

Nikos Yannis

EDITOR CONSULTANT:

Nancy Vasilopoulou

EDITORS IN CHIEF:

Konstantinos Diamantikos

Nikos Itsines

∞SSISTANT EDITORS:

Eleni Demiri

REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS:

Georgia Astraka ñ Antuanetta

Ekonomopoulou ñ Vassiliki Georgiadou ñ

Stavros Kourtalis ñ Dimosthenis Mammonas ñ

Marika Karayanni ñ Kostas Lavdas ñ George

Pagoulatos ñ Ch. Papassotiriou ñ Thodoros

Psalidopoulos ñSylvia Tsaglioti ñ H. Tsiliotis ñ

Nancy Vasilopoulou, Dimitris Chryssochou

ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

Stergios Babanasis ñ Thanasis

Diamandopoulos ñ Nikos Frangakis ñ

Panayotis Ioakimidis ñ Ilias Katsoulis ñ

Panos Kazakos ñ Antonis Makrydemetres ñ

Yiorgos Papadimitriou ñ Argiris Passas ñ

Konstantinos Stefanou ªichalis Tsinisizelis ñ

Pavlos Tzermias

ADVISOR - PUBLIC RELATIONS:

Alexandros Lakerdas–Ypsiladis

TRANSLATIONS:

ñ A. Baboula ñ P. Balopoulou ñ V. Geka ñ St.

Karathanou ñ V. Polyzoidi

TECHNICAL ADVISOR:

Politika Themata Inc.

CORRESPONDENTS ABROAD:

Eszter Almassy (Budapest) ñ G.

Chatzimarkakis (Bonn) ñ D. Christopoulos

(Bristol) ñ Yorgos Heretis (Belgrade) ñ Irina

Pavlova (Skopja) ñ Ronald Meinardus (Manila)

ñ Savas Papassavas (Nikosia) ñ Camil Parvu

(Bucarest) ñ Beata Plonka (Washington) ñ

Alessandro Stricca (Rome) ñ D. Triantafyllou

(Brussels) ñ Nikos Yannis (Brussels) ñ Ch.

Zoumboulis (Berlin),

Editorial: In the name of peace or of the rose? ..............................................3

CYPRUS – TURKEY – EU

P. KAZAKOS: Two scenarios for the future of Europe .......................................4

K. DIAMANTIKOS: Internal reforms and the European policy of Turkey ........10

V. TZEVELEKOS: The integration perspective of Cyprus

in the European Union as a way of resolution of the Cyprus problem .........13

EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

M. PANAGIARI: Europe’s Common Foreign Policy:

How well is the EU doing? ..........................................................................18

The American foreign policy after September 11th.

The three-fold strategy of the new american strategic doctrine.....................23

EU CONVERGENCE

P. LAMBRIDIS: The «Francovich case»: The adjudication

of the European Court of Justice that changed the route

of the European Integration ........................................................................28

S. RODOKANAKIS: The European regional policy from 2000 to 2006...........32

CIVIL SOCIETY:

J. WESTHEIMER: What kind of citizen?

The politics of educating for Democracy .....................................................37

RESEARCH

Getting to the core of migration..................................................................43

BOOKS......................................................................................................46

EKFRASI’S NEWS.....................................................................................47

Page 5: European Expression - Issue 48

√fiÏÂÌÔ˜ ÛÙÔ πڿΠη٤ÛÙËÛ ۷ʋ, ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ·fi οı ¿ÏÏË ÊÔÚ¿, ÛÙÔ˘˜ ∂˘Úˆ·›Ô˘˜ Ôϛ٘ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÂÓÔÔ›ËÛ˘ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘,ÙfiÛÔ Ô˘ ‹‰Ë ·˘Ùfi Ó· ·ÎÔ‡ÁÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ÎÔÈÓÔÙÔ›·.

◊Ù·Ó Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È ·Ó¿ÁÎË Ó· ÊÙ¿ÛÔ˘Ì ˆ˜ Â‰Ò ÁÈ· Ó· Á›ÓÂÈÎÔÈÓ‹ Û˘Ó›‰ËÛË ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÒÓ Ï·ÒÓ Ë ÎÔÈÓfi-ÙËÙ· ·ÍÈÒÓ, ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂˆÓ Î·È Û˘ÌÊÂÚfiÓÙˆÓ. ∏ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋’∂ÎÊÚ·ÛË ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›˙ÂÈ ·fi ÙÔ ¤ÙÔ˜ ›‰Ú˘Û˘ Ù˘, ÙÔannus mirabilis 1989, ÙËÓ ·Ó¿ÁÎË ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷ΋˜ ÔÚÁ¿-ÓˆÛ˘ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘, ̤ۈ Ù˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ, ˆ˜ÙË ÌfiÓË ·ÍÈfiÈÛÙË ‰È¤ÍÔ‰Ô ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ‚ÈÒÛÈÌË ÂÈÚ‹ÓË Î·È ÙˉȷÛÊ¿ÏÈÛË Ù˘ ÂÏ¢ıÂÚ›·˜, Ù˘ ÛÙ·ıÂÚfiÙËÙ·˜ Î·È ÙË˜Â˘ËÌÂÚ›·˜ Û ÔÏfiÎÏËÚË ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ‹ÂÈÚÔ. ªÈ· ∂˘-Úˆ·˚΋ √ÌÔÛÔÓ‰›· ı· ‹Ù·Ó ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· ÂÈÚËÓÈ΋˜ ˘-¤Ú‚·Û˘ ·ÓÙÈı¤ÛÂˆÓ Î·È ÌfiÓÈÌ˘ Û˘Ì‚›ˆÛ˘, fi¯È ‚Â-‚·›ˆ˜ ÂÍ·ÁÒÁÈÌÔ Ì ÙËÓ ›‰È· ÌÔÚÊ‹, ÁÈ· ÙȘ ¿ÏϘ ÂÚÈÔ-¯¤˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎfiÛÌÔ˘. ŸÙ·Ó ÍÂΛÓËÛÂ Ô fiÏÂÌÔ˜ ÛÙË °ÈÔ˘ÁÎÔ-ÛÏ·‚›· Ë ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË Í·Ó·ÚfiÙÂÈÓ Ì ¿ıÔ˜ÙÔ ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷÎfi Û¯¤‰ÈÔ. ŸÌˆ˜ ÁÈ· ÙË Û¯ÔÏ‹ Ù˘ Ôχ-¯ÚˆÌ˘ ‰ËÌ·ÁˆÁ›·˜ ·˘Ùfi ·ÎÔ˘ÁfiÙ·Ó ÙfiÙ ˆ˜ Ô˘ÙÔ›·.

∏ÔÙÈ΋ ̤۷ ·fi ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ÙÔ ∏Ó.µ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ ·ÓÙÈ-ÌÂÙÒÈ˙ ·Ó¤Î·ıÂÓ ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÂÓÔÔ›ËÛË Â›-Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙ‹. ∆Ô Úfi‚ÏËÌ· fï˜, Ô˘ ÂÍËÁ› ÂÓ̤ÚÂÈ Î·È ÙȘ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ Ì ÙÔ πÚ¿Î, ›-

Ó·È Ë ·‰˘Ó·Ì›· Ù˘ °·ÏÏ›·˜ Ó· Û˘ÌÊÈÏȈı› Ì ÙÔÓ ÈÛÙÔ-ÚÈÎfi Ù˘ ÚfiÏÔ, Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜, Ì ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ ÔÈfiÙËÙ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ-΋˜ Î·È Ù¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈ΋˜ ·Ó¿Ù˘Í˘, Ì ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ Û˘ÁÎÂÓÙÚˆ-ÙÈÎfi Î·È ·‰È·Ê·Ó¤˜ ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ ‰ÈÔÈÎËÙÈ΋˜ Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÔÚ-Á¿ÓˆÛ˘, ÙËÓ ÂÌÔ‰›˙ÂÈ Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙ÂÈ Ì ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË¢ڇÙËÙ·, ÁÂÓÓ·ÈÔ‰ˆÚ›· Î·È ‰˘Ó·ÌÈÛÌfi ÙÔ ÂıÓÈÎfi ÙË˜Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓ. ∏ ÚfiÙ·ÛË ÁÈ· ÙË ‰ÈÏ‹ ¶ÚÔ‰ڛ· ÛÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔÙ˘ ∂∂, ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ηٿ Û˘Ì‚È‚·ÛÌfi ·Ô‰¤¯ÂÙ·È Ë °ÂÚÌ·-Ó›·, ÂȂ‚·ÈÒÓÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÌÌÔÓ‹ Ù˘ °·ÏÏ›·˜ ÛÙËsouveraineté nationale Î·È ÛÙÔÓ ‰È·Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎfi ¯·Ú·ÎÙ‹-Ú· Ù˘ ∂∂. ∏ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÌÈ·˜ ÎÔÈÓ‹˜ ·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ-΋˜ ÂÎÙfi˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡ Ï·ÈÛ›Ô˘ ı· ‹Ù·Ó ÌÈ· ıÂÙÈ΋ Â-ͤÏÈÍË ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ ÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›ˆÛ˘. ∏ ‡-Ê·ÓÛË ÙÔ˘ ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷÎÔ‡ ÈÛÙÔ‡ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ·Ó¿-ÁÎË ÌÈ· ÚˆÙÔÔÚ›·, fiˆ˜ Î·È ÌÈ· ÎÚ›ÛË, Û·Ó ÎÈ ·˘Ù‹ ›-Ûˆ˜ Ô˘ ˙‹Û·Ì Ì ÙÔ ı¤Ì· ÙÔ˘ πÚ¿Î. ∞fi ÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË Ë ÔÈ-ÎÔ‰fiÌËÛË Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈο Âӈ̤Ó˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Â›Ó·È ÚÔÙÈ-ÌfiÙÂÚÔ Ó· Û˘ÓÙÂÏÂÛı› ÛÂ Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÌÈ·˜ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋˜ ·-ÎÔÏÔ˘ı›·˜ ÔÈÎÂÈÔıÂÏÔ‡˜ ·Ú·›ÙËÛ˘ ·fi Ù· ÛÙÂÓ¿ ÓÔ-Ô‡ÌÂÓ· Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙ·, ·Ú¿ › ÙË ‚¿ÛÂÈ ÂÓfi˜ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈ-ÎÔ‡ ‹ ·ÎfiÌË ¯ÂÈÚfiÙÂÚ· ÂÈη˙fiÌÂÓÔ˘ ·ÓÙÈ¿ÏÔ˘. ŒÙÛÈ ı·Â›Ó·È Èı·ÓfiÙÂÚË Ë ·ÔÊ˘Á‹ ÙÔ˘ ÂÈÚ·ÛÌÔ‡ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó¿-Ù˘ÍË ÂÓfi˜ «Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ÂıÓÈÎÈÛÌÔ‡» Î·È Ë Â‰Ú·›ˆÛËÌÈ·˜ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Ô˘ Ó· Û˘Ó‰˘¿˙ÂÈ ·fi ı¤ÛË ÂÈÚËÓÈ΋˜‰È·¯Â›ÚÈÛ˘ Ù˘ ÈÛ¯‡Ô˜ Ù˘ ÙfiÛÔ ÙËÓ ÂÏ¢ıÂÚ›· Î·È Â˘Ë-ÌÂÚ›· ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi Ù˘ fiÛÔ Î·È ÙËÓ ·ÏÏËÏÂÁÁ‡Ë Ì ÙÔÓ˘fiÏÔÈÔ ÎfiÛÌÔ.

∂¿Ó ‰ÂÓ ÂÈı˘Ìԇ̠ÏÔÈfiÓ Ó· ˙‹ÛÔ˘Ì ÙËÓ Â·Ó¿-ÏË„Ë ÙˆÓ ‰˘Û¿ÚÂÛÙˆÓ ÂÌÂÈÚÈÒÓ ÙˆÓ ‰È·Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎÒӉȷÛΤ„ÂˆÓ Ù˘ ¡›Î·È·˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ÕÌÛÙÂÚÓÙ·Ì, fiÔ˘ «fi-‰˘ÓÂÓ fiÚÔ˜ Î·È ¤ÙÂÎÂÓ Ì˘Ó», ȉԇ ÌÈ· ¿ÏÏË ÔÚ›· Ô˘ÚÔÙ›ÓÔ˘Ó Ôϛ٘ Î·È ª∫√ ·fi fiÏË ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË ÌÂÙ·-͇ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ Î·È Ë ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË:(1) √ ¶Úfi‰ÚÔ˜ ¡Ù’ ∂ÛÙ¤Ó ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÙÔ ÚÔÛ¯¤‰ÈÔ ™˘-

ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÛÙÔ ∂˘Ú. ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ÙÔÓ πÔ‡ÓÈÔ Î·È ÛÙÔ ∂˘Ú.∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ.

(2) ∏ ™˘Ó¤Ï¢ÛË ÙÔ ÂÂÍÂÚÁ¿˙ÂÙ·È, Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ˘fi„Ë

ÙȘ Û˘˙ËÙ‹ÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ ∂˘Ú. ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ Î·È ÛÙÔ ∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡-ÏÈÔ.

(3) ∆· ̤ÏË Ù˘ ™˘Ó¤Ï¢Û˘ ·ÔÊ·Û›˙Ô˘Ó ‚¿ÛÂÈ ÙˆÓÚÔÛ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÛÌÒÓ ÙˆÓ ÂıÓÈÎÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ÎÔÈÓÔ‚Ô˘Ï›ˆÓ(7–10.2003).

(4) √ ¶Úfi‰ÚÔ˜ ¡Ù’ ∂ÛÙ¤Ó ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÙÔ Û¯¤‰ÈÔ Û ÌÈ·™‡ÓÔ‰Ô ∫ÔÚ˘Ê‹˜ Ù˘ ∂Œ Î·È ÙˆÓ ˘Ô„ËÊ›ˆÓ ¯ˆÚÒÓ(12.2003).

(5) √È ∫˘‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂȘ ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ™‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ· ÛÂ Â˘Úˆ-·˚Îfi ‰ËÌÔ„‹ÊÈÛÌ· Ì·˙› Ì ÙȘ Â˘ÚˆÂÎÏÔÁ¤˜ (6.2004).

(6) ∆Ô ™‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ· Ù˘ ∂∂ Ù›ıÂÙ·È ¿ÌÂÛ· Û ÈÛ¯‡ ÛÙ· ÎÚ¿ÙËÂΛӷ fiÔ˘ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÏÂÈÔ„ËÊ›·.

∂ÊfiÛÔÓ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ Á›ÓÂÈ ‰ËÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈ΋ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ¿Ù¢ÛËÙÔ˘ ™˘ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ÛÙË ™˘Ó¤Ï¢ÛË, ÌÈ· ‰Â‡ÙÂÚË ‰È·-Ú·ÁÌ¿Ù¢ÛË Ì¤Ûˆ ÌÈ·˜ ‰Èψ̷ÙÈ΋˜ ‰È·‰Èηۛ·˜ı· ‹Ù·Ó ··Ú¿‰ÂÎÙË. ŒÙÛÈ Ù· ̤ÏË Ù˘ ™˘Ó¤Ï¢-

Û˘ ‰È·ÙËÚÔ‡Ó ÙÔÓ ¤ÏÂÁ¯Ô Ù˘ Û˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈ΋˜ ‰È·‰Èηۛ·˜Î·È ·ÔÎÏÂ›Ô˘Ó Ù· ÛÎÔÙÂÈÓ¿ ·˙¿ÚÈ· ÙˆÓ ‰È·Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈÎÒÓÙÔ˘ ª¿·ÛÙÚȯÙ, ÙÔ˘ ÕÌÛÙÂÚÓÙ·Ì Î·È Ù˘ ¡›Î·È·˜. ∏ ™˘Ó¤-Ï¢ÛË Â›Ó·È Ô ÌfiÓÔ˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi˜ ÙfiÔ˜ ÛÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔ Ù˘ŒÓˆÛ˘, fiÔ˘ ÂÎÊÚ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È fiϘ ÔÈ Û˘ÓÙ·ÎÙÈΤ˜ ‰˘Ó¿-ÌÂȘ Î·È Û ÂıÓÈÎfi (∫˘‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂȘ, ∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡ÏÈ·) Î·È Û ¢-Úˆ·˚Îfi (∂˘Ú. ∫ÔÈÓÔ‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ, ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹) ›‰Ô. OÈ ·Ú¯Ë-ÁÔ› ∫Ú·ÙÒÓ ÔÊ›ÏÔ˘Ó Ó· ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛıÔ‡Ó Û ÌÈ· Û˘Ìʈӛ· ‹‰È·ÊˆÓ›· ÛÙÔ ∂˘Ú.™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, Ë ‰ËÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈ΋ ÓÔÌÈ-ÌÔÔ›ËÛË ı· ÚÔ·„ÂÈ ·fi ÙËÓ ËÁ‹ Ù˘ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜, ‰Ë-Ï·‰‹ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ Ï·Ô‡˜ ̤ۈ ‰ËÌÔ„ËÊÈÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ.

∞ÚÎÂÙÔ› ·fi ÂΛÓÔ˘˜, ÙÔ˘˜ «Ú·ÏÈÛÙ¤˜» ÙˆÓ Â-ıÓÒÓ-ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ, ÎÚ·ÙÈÎÔ‰›·ÈÙ· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙ· ÌÂÙÔ˘˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡˜ Î·È ·Î·‰ËÌ·˚ÎÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙ˘ÏÔ‚¿Ù˜, Ô˘Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÌfiÏȘ ÙȘ ·Ú¯¤˜ ÙÔ˘ 2003 ıˆÚÔ‡Û·Ó «·Ó¤ÊÈÎÙË»ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ÂÓÔÔ›ËÛË Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘, Û‹ÌÂÚ· ˘fi ÙËÓ›ÂÛË Ù˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ ·ÏÏ¿˙Ô˘Ó ÚfiÙ·. ÿÛˆ˜ ‰ÂÓı· ·ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ Ë ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Ô˘ ÔÈ ÊÂÓÙÂÚ·ÏÈÛÙ¤˜ ı· ˘ÂÚ·ÛÈ-˙fiÌ·ÛÙ ÙËÓ ·Í›· ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ ÛÙËÓ ’∂ÓˆÛË ·¤Ó·-ÓÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ·ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓË Ù¿ÍË ÙˆÓ Ó¤Ô-Â˘Úˆ·˚ÛÙÒÓ Ô˘, fi-ˆ˜ Û˘Ó‹ıˆ˜ Û˘Ì‚·›ÓÂÈ, ηٷÛ‡‰Ô˘Ó Û‹ÌÂÚ· Ó· ÔÈ-ÎÂÈÔÔÈËıÔ‡Ó ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ȉ¤· Î·È Ó· ·Ó·ıÂÌÂÏÈÒ-ÛÔ˘Ó ÛÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· Ù˘ ÂÈÚ‹Ó˘ ÙÔ ËÁÂÌÔÓÈÎfi ÂÚȯfiÌÂÓÔÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ˆÓ, ÔÓÂÈÚ¢fiÌÂÓÔÈ ¤Ó· ¢-Úˆ·˚Îfi ˘ÂÚ-ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜.

™ÙÔÓ ‚·ıÌfi Ô˘ Ë Ô˘Û›· Ù˘ ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛ˘ ÛÙËÓ ·ÌÂÚÈ-ηÓÈ΋ ¤̂·ÛË ÛÙÔ πÚ¿Î ‹Ù·Ó Ô ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈο ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÙÈ-Îfi˜ ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚÈÛÌfi˜ ÙÔ˘ ÂıÓÈÎÔ‡ Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙÔ˜ ·fi ÙËÓ΢‚¤ÚÓËÛË ªÔ˘˜, ı· ‹Ù·Ó ÏÔÁÈÎfi Ó· ÂÚÈ̤ÓÂÈ Î·Ó›˜·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÂÈÎÚÈÙ¤˜ ·˘Ù‹˜ Ù˘ ¤̂·Û˘ ÛÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË¤Ó·Ó Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÂıÓÈÎÔ‡ Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙÔ˜ÂÓÙfi˜ Ù˘ ∂∂ Î·È ÌÈ· ÔÈÎÔ˘ÌÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚË ıÂÒÚËÛË ÙˆÓ ˘ÊÈ-ÛÙ¿ÌÂÓˆÓ ÚÔ‚ÏËÌ¿ÙˆÓ. ø˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ÚÒÙÔ Â›Ì·ÛÙ fiÏÔÈ·ÓÙÈ̤وÔÈ Î·È Ë °·ÏÏ›· ›Ûˆ˜ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ ·’ fiÏÔ˘˜Ì ÙÔ ‰›ÏËÌÌ· Ù˘ ˘¤Ú‚·Û˘ Ù˘ ÂıÓÈ΋˜ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜Î·È Ù˘ ‰ڷ›ˆÛ˘ ÌÈ·˜ ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙ›·˜. ø˜ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ Ë ∂˘ÚÒË Î·ÏÂ›Ù·È ‹‰Ë Ó· ÙÔÔıÂÙËı›˘¤Ú ÌÈ·˜ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈ΋˜ ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ·˜ ÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›·˜, ˘‚Ú›-‰ÈÔ ÌfiÓÔ Ù˘ ÔÔ›·˜ ‹Ù·Ó Ô √∏∂. ∞˜ ÌËÓ ‚È·ÛÙÔ‡Ó ·˘Ù‹ÙË ÊÔÚ¿ ÔÈ «Ú·ÏÈÛÙ¤˜» Î·È ÓÂfiÎÔÔÈ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÛÙ¤˜ Ó·Ì·˜ ·ÔηϤÛÔ˘Ó Ô˘ÙÔÈÎÔ‡˜, ÁÈ·Ù› ›Ûˆ˜ ÙfiÙ ÍÂÂÚ·-ÛıÔ‡Ó ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ·ÎfiÌË ÊÔÚ¿ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ˘ÂÚ·ÙÏ·ÓÙÈÎÔ‡˜ÊÂÓÙÂÚ·ÏÈÛÙ¤˜ «·ÓÙÈ¿ÏÔ˘˜» Î·È ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›·. ™ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ·Ù˘ ÂÈÚ‹Ó˘ ·ÛÊ·ÏÒ˜ Î·È fi¯È ÛÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ÙÔ˘ Úfi‰Ô˘…..

¡›ÎÔ˜ °È·ÓÓ‹˜

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

EEddiittoo

rriiaall

™ÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· Ù˘ ÂÈÚ‹Ó˘ ‹ ÛÙÔ fiÓÔÌ· ÙÔ˘ Úfi‰Ô˘;

Page 6: European Expression - Issue 48

4 K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

1. ∆Ô ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈÔÙ˘ ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋˜ Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·˜.

∆Ô ¤Ó· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ·Ó·ÓÂÒÓÂÙ·ÈÙÔ ·Ú¯ÈÎfi ηٿ ‚¿ÛË ÔÏÈÙÈ-Îfi Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ÁÈ· ÌÈ· “ever closer

Union”. ªÈ· Ù¤ÙÔÈ· ÂͤÏÈÍË ı· ›-Ó·È ÂÌÊ·ÓÒ˜ ÙÔ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ÌÈ·˜È‰ÈfiÙ˘Ë˜ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋˜ Ô˘ ÂÈ-ÎÚ¿ÙËÛ ۯ‰fiÓ ÂÍ ·Ú¯‹˜ ÛÙËÓ∂∂ Î·È Ô˘ ·¤ÊÂÚ ¤Ó· ‚·ıÌÈ·›Ô‚¿ı·ÈÌ· Ù˘ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛ˘.

¶ÔÏÏ¿ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó fiÙÈ ·˘Ùfi ÙÔÔÏÈÙÈÎfi Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ÌÈ·˜ ÔÏÔ¤Ó· ÈfiÂӈ̤Ó˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ ·Ó·ÓÂÒÓÂÙ·È¿ÏÈ. ∫·È ¤Ó· ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË ÚÔ¸Ôı¤ÙÂÈ, ·ÎÚÈ-‚Ò˜, ÙËÓ....∂˘ÚÒË ˆ˜ ¯ÒÚÔ ·Ó·-ÊÔÚ¿˜. §ÔÁÈο Ë È‰¤· ÙÔ˘ «™˘-ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜» ˘Ô‰ËÏÒÓÂÈ Â›Û˘ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ÊÈÏÔ‰ÔÍ›·- ÙËÓ ÂÈı˘Ì›·Ó· ¯·Ú·¯ıÔ‡Ó fiÚÈ·. ªÂ ÙÔÓ ›‰ÈÔÙÚfiÔ ÌÔÚԇ̠ӷ ÓÔËÌ·ÙÔ‰Ô-Ù‹ÛÔ˘Ì ÙË Ã¿ÚÙ· ÙˆÓ ıÂÌÂÏȈ-‰ÒÓ ‰ÈηȈ̿وÓ, ÙËÓ Î·ı›‰Ú˘ÛËÌ˯·ÓÈÛÌÒÓ ÂÍÔ‚ÂÏÈÛÌÔ‡ fiÛˆÓÙ· ·Ú·‚È¿˙Ô˘Ó, ÙË Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓ‹ ¿Ì˘Ó·, Ô˘ ˆ˜ ÚfiÛÊ·-Ù· ‹Ù·Ó Ù·ÌÔ‡ ÎÏ.

√È ‚·ıÂȤ˜ Ú›˙˜: ÃÚÈÛÙÈ·ÓÈ-ÛÌfi˜ Î·È ·Ú¯·ÈfiÙËÙ·.

∏ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ·˘Ù‹ ¤¯ÂÈ ‚·ıÂȤ˜Ú›˙˜ ÛÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚-΋˜ ȉ¤·˜ Î·È ÛÙÔÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌfi. ∞Í›-˙ÂÈ Ó· ÂÈηÏÂÛıԇ̠ÌÈ· ·˘ıÂ-ÓÙ›· ‰Ò- ÙÔÓ T.S. Eliot. ™Â ¤Ó· ÌÈ-ÎÚfi ÙÔ˘ ‰ÔΛÌÈÔ (Ë ÂÓfiÙËÙ· Ù˘

¢‡Ô ÂΉԯ¤˜ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘

ÙÔ˘ ¶¿ÓÔ˘ ∫·˙¿ÎÔ˘∫·ıËÁËÙ‹ ÙÔ˘ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌ›Ô˘ ∞ıËÓÒÓ.

∆Ô ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ Ù˘ ∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘ (¢ÂÎ. 2002)‰ÂÓ ¤ıÂÛ ٤ÚÌ· ÛÙȘ ·‚‚·ÈfiÙËÙ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈ΋

ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Ô˘ ı· ÂÍ·ÚÙËı› ·fi ÙËÓ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∂∂. ∞ÓÙ›ıÂÙ· Ô ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ˜

‰È¿ÏÔÁÔ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ Ù˘ Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜Û˘Ó¯›˙ÂÙ·È, ÂÈÎÂÓÙÚÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˜ Á‡Úˆ ·fi Ù· ˘¤Ú ηÈÙ· ηٿ Ù˘ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘. ™ÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, Ô Úˆı˘Ô˘ÚÁfi˜

ÚÔÛ¤Ê˘Á Û ÌÈ· ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ ÂÈfiÏ·ÈË ÂÚÌËÓ›·ÙÔ˘ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓÙÔ˜ ÁÈ· Ó· ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›ÍÂÈ fiÙÈ Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·

Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ Ù˘ ∂∂- ÙËÓ ·ÚÔ˘Û›· Ù˘ÔıˆÌ·ÓÈ΋˜ ·˘ÙÔÎÚ·ÙÔÚ›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË ·fi ÙÔÓ 15Ô

·ÈÒÓ· (1)- ÚÔηÏÒÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ ˘fiÌÓËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ¤‰ÚÔ˘Ù˘ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ fiÙÈ ÔÈ ÔıˆÌ·ÓÔ› ‰ÂÓ ¿ÊËÛ·Ó «¤ÚÁÔ

ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡» ›Ûˆ ÙÔ˘˜ (2). √È ·fi„ÂȘ ·˘Ù¤˜·ÔηχÙÔ˘Ó fi¯È ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂÈfiϷȘ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· ‹ ·Ú·‚Ï¤Ô˘Ó ÙË ÌÂÁ¿ÏË Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË ÁÈ·

ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÓÂÔÙÂÚÈÎfiÙËÙ·, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÂÓÙ¤ÏÂÈÛ˘ÛÎÔÙ›˙Ô˘Ó Ô˘ÛÈÒ‰Ë ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù·.

™ÙË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·, ı· ÂÍÂÙ¿Ûˆ ·Ï¿ ÙȘ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ(ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈ·) Ô˘ Èı·ÓfiÓ ı· ‰ÚÔÌÔÏÔÁËıÔ‡Ó ÛÙËÓ ∂∂ ·Ó

Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÂÓÙ·¯ı› Î·È ·Ó ‰ÂÓ ÂÓÙ·¯ı› Û ·˘Ù‹. ÀÔı¤Ùˆ, fiÙÈ Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ı· ·Ú·Ì›ÓÂÈ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈ΋

·fi ÙȘ Â˘Úˆ·˚Τ˜ ÎÔÈӈӛ˜ (3) Î·È fiÙÈ ÛÂÛ˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌfi Ì ÙÔ Ì¤ÁÂıfi˜ Ù˘ (ÙÔ 2025 ı· Â›Ó·È Ë

ÏËı˘ÛÌȷο ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ¯ÒÚ· Ù˘ «ŒÓˆÛ˘») ı¤ÙÂÈ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù· Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋˜. ªÂ ¿ÏÏ· ÏfiÁÈ· Ë

¤ÓÙ·Í‹ Ù˘ ÛÙËÓ ∂∂ ‰ÂÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÌfiÓÔ, Ô‡Ù ΢ڛˆ˜ ÙËχÛË ÙÔ˘ ΢ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ‹ ÙË ‚ÂÏÙ›ˆÛË ÙˆÓ

ÂÏÏËÓÔÙÔ˘ÚÎÈÎÒÓ Û¯¤ÛˆÓ. ∏ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ı·ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ ˆ˜ ηٷχÙ˘ ÁÈ· ÌÈ·Ó ¿ÏÏË ŒÓˆÛË.

∞˘Ùfi Â›Ó·È ıÂÌÂÏÈ҉˜ Î·È ¤¯ÂÈ ÍÂʇÁÂÈ ÙÂÏÂÈÒ˜ ·fiÙËÓ ÛÙÂÓ‹ ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ ÔÙÈ΋.

∫·Ù¿ ÙË ÁÓÒÌË ÌÔ˘ Ë Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË ÌÔÚ› Ó· ÔÚÁ·Óˆı›Á‡Úˆ ·fi ‰˘fi ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈ·.

Page 7: European Expression - Issue 48

K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 5

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú·˜) ÂÂÛ‹-Ì·Ó ӈڛ˜ fiÙÈ ÔÈ ÂıÓÈΤ˜ Û˘ÓÈ-ÛÙÒÛ˜ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ ·ÓÙÏÔ‡Ó ·-fi ÎÔÈÓ¤˜ ËÁ¤˜.

«À¿Ú¯ÂÈ ¤Ó· ÎÔÈÓfi ÛÙÔȯ›ÔÛÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú·, ÌÈ· È-ÛÙÔÚ›· ·ÏÏËϤӉÂÙˆÓ ÙÚfiˆÓÛΤ„˘ Î·È Û˘Ó·ÈÛı‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ηÈÛ˘ÌÂÚÈÊÔÚ¿˜, ÌÈ· ·ÓÙ·ÏÏ·Á‹ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÙÔÌ›˜ ÙˆÓ Ù¯ÓÒÓ Î·È ÙˆÓȉÂÒÓ...∏ ÂÓfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ¢˘ÙÈÎÔ‡ÎfiÛÌÔ˘ ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È Û ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓÎÏËÚÔÓÔÌÈ¿, ÛÙÔ ÃÚÈÛÙÈ·ÓÈÛÌfi ηÈÛÙÔ˘˜ ·Ú¯·›Ô˘˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡˜ Ù˘∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜, Ù˘ ƒÒÌ˘ Î·È ÙÔ˘πÛÚ·‹Ï»(4).

√ ∆. S. Eliot ϤÁÂÈ Î·È ¿ÏÏ· ÔÏ-Ï¿. ∞ÏÏ¿ ÎÚ›ÛÈÌË Â‰Ò Â›Ó·È Ë ı¤ÛËÙÔ˘ fiÙÈ «·˘Ù‹ Ë ÂÓfiÙËÙ· Ô˘ Â-Í·ÚÙ¿Ù·È ·fi Ù· ÎÔÈÓ¿ ÛÙÔȯ›·Ù˘ ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú·˜ Ì·˜ Â›Ó·È ·˘ÙfiÔ˘ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈο Ì·˜ Û˘Ó‰¤ÂÈ».

¶ÚÔÛı¤ÙÔ˘ÌÂ, fiÙÈ Ë ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈ-΋ ÂÓfiÙËÙ· Û˘ÓÈÛÙ¿ ÙË ‚¿ÛË ·ÏÏ¿Î·È Î·ıÔÚ›˙ÂÈ Ù· fiÚÈ· Î·È ÙȘ ÌÔÚ-ʤ˜ Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛ˘. ∆·ÎÔÈÓ¿ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈο ¿ÏϘ ÊÔ-Ú¤˜ ÂÈÙÚ¤Ô˘Ó ÚÔˆıË̤ӷۯ‹Ì·Ù· Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ Î·È ¿ÏϘÊÔÚ¤˜ ··ÁÔÚÂ‡Ô˘Ó «Ï‡ÛÂȘ»ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÔÌÔÈÔÌÔÚÊ›·˜ Î·È ˘·-ÁˆÁ‹˜ Û ¤Ó· ΤÓÙÚÔ- ·˜ Ô‡ÌÂηÚÔÏ›ÁÁÂÈÔ˘ ‹ ¯ÈÙÏÂÚÈÎÔ‡ Ù‡Ô˘.

∂ÙÂÚÔ¯ÚÔÓÈÛÌÔ› Î·È Ù·˘ÙfiÙË-Ù˜.

∆Ô ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ÂÚÒÙËÌ· ÙÒÚ· Â›Ó·È·Ó ÔÈ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚-΋ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË Î·È ÁÈ· Ù· Û‡ÓÔÚ¿Ù˘ Ô˘ ÂÈÎÚ¿ÙËÛ·Ó ÌÂÙ·ÔÏÂ-ÌÈο ·›˙Ô˘Ó ·ÎfiÌË ÚfiÏÔ. ¡ÔÌ›˙ˆfiÙÈ Ó·È. ¶.¯. ηıfiÚÈÛ·Ó ÙË ÛÙ¿ÛËÙˆÓ ‰˘ÙÈÎÔÂ˘Úˆ·›ˆÓ ¤Ó·ÓÙÈ ˘-Ô„ËÊ›ˆÓ ÁÈ· ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÚÈÓ Î·È ÌÂ-Ù¿ ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ÚÚ¢ÛË ÙˆÓ ÎÔÌÌÔ˘-ÓÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ Î·ıÂÛÙÒÙˆÓ. ¢ÂÓ Â›Ó·ÈÙ˘¯·›Ô fiÙÈ Ô˘‰Â›˜ ·ÌÊÈÛ‚‹ÙËÛÂ Û’Â›Â‰Ô ·Ú¯‹˜ ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ¯ˆÚÒÓÔ˘ ÂıˆÚÔ‡ÓÙÔ ·Ï·ÈfiıÂÓ Û˘-ÛÙ·ÙÈο ̤ÚË Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ Ô-

ÏÈÙÈÛÌÈ΋˜ ÁˆÁÚ·Ê›·˜ fiˆ˜ Ë∂ÏÏ¿‰· (·Ú¿ ÙË ‰ÈÎÙ·ÙÔÚ›· Ù˘),Ë ƒÔ˘Ì·Ó›· Î·È Ë ∂ÛıÔÓ›·! ¡·È,›Ûˆ ·fi ÙËÓ ÙˆÚÈÓ‹ ‰È‡ڢÓÛËÎÚ‡‚ÂÙ·È Ë È‰¤· ÙÔ˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·˜, Ô˘ ‰È·ÌÔÚʈıËÎÂ̤۷ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ·ÈÒÓ˜.

√ ŒÏÈÔ٠›¯Â ÙËÓ Ù¤¯ÓË Î·È ÙËÏÔÁÔÙ¯ӛ· ÛÙÔ ÔÙÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ ‰›Ô.ªÔÚ› fï˜ ηÓ›˜ Ó· ‰È·Ù˘Ò-ÛÂÈ Ù· ›‰È· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· Î·È ÁÈ· ¿Ï-Ϙ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ – ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·,ÙÔ˘˜ ıÂÛÌÔ‡˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋. ∏ÛËÌÂÚÈÓ‹ ŒÓˆÛË Û˘ÁÎÚÔÙ› ·fiÔÏϤ˜ Ï¢ڤ˜ ¤Ó· ÚÔˆıË̤-ÓÔ Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ Ì ÎÂ-ÓÙÚÈÎfi ÙÔ˘ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi fiÙÈÛ ·˘Ùfi Ë ¤ÓÓÔÈ· Ù˘ ÂıÓÈ΋˜ ΢-ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜ ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ÚˆÙÂ‡Ô˘Û· ‹fiÙÈ ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÏÏ¿ÍÂÈ ÂÚȯfiÌÂÓÔ.∂›Û˘ Î·È Û˘Ó·ÊÒ˜, Ë ŒÓˆÛË ¤-¯ÂÈ ıÂÛÌÔıÂÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ «·ÌÔÈ‚·›·ÂÈÙ‹ÚËÛË» Î·È ·Ú¤Ì‚·ÛË ÛÙ· Â-ÛˆÙÂÚÈο ÙÔ˘ οı ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜. ŸÏ··˘Ù¿ ÚÔ¸Ôı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚÔ Â-ıÓÈÎÈÛÌfi Î·È ÌÈ· ·›ÛıËÛË «ÎÔÈÓfi-ÙËÙ·˜ ·ÍÈÒÓ Î·È Û˘ÌÊÂÚfiÓÙˆÓ».∞ÏÏÈÒ˜ Ù¤ÙÔÈÔÈ Ì˯·ÓÈÛÌÔ› ·ÌÔÈ-‚·›·˜ ·Ú¤Ì‚·Û˘ ÂÓÂÚÁÔÔÈÔ‡Ó·Ï¿ Î·È ÌfiÓÔ ÂıÓÈÎÈÛÙÈο ·Ó·-ÎÏ·ÛÙÈο.

∆ÒÚ·, Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È ·-Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ· Û ¿ÏÏË ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ Â-Ú›Ô‰Ô. ∞ÎfiÌË ÊÔ‚¿Ù·È fiÙÈ Ë ÂıÓÈ-

΋ Ù˘ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË ·ÂÈÏÂ›Ù·È ·-fi ̤۷ Î·È ·fi ¤Íˆ, Ë ¤ÓÓÔÈ·ÙÔ˘ ¤ıÓÔ˘˜ Â›Ó·È ·Ó›Û¯˘ÚË Î·ÈÚÔ‚¿ÏÏÂÙ·È Û˘Ó¯Ҙ Û ۯÔ-ÏÂ›Ô Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈ΋, Ô ÛÙÚ·Ùfi˜ ÏÂÈ-ÙÔ˘ÚÁ› ˆ˜ ¤Ó· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ÌÏfiÎÛ˘ÌÊÂÚfiÓÙˆÓ Ì ıÂÛÌÔıÂÙË̤ÓËÂÍÔ˘Û›·. ¶ˆ˜ ı· ÂÓÙ·¯ı› ÛÙÔÚÔˆıË̤ÓÔ Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Ù˘ ∂∂; ¶È-ı·ÓfiÓ Â‰Ò Â›Ó·È Ô˘ ÌÔÚ› Ó· ·-ÍÈÔÔÈËı› Ë «˘fiıÂÛË ÙÔ˘ ÿÓÙÈ-ÁÎÙÔÓ» fiÙÈ ·ÚÂÌ‚¿ÛÂȘ ÛÙ· ÂÛˆ-ÙÂÚÈο ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÒÓÚÔηÏÔ‡Ó ÂÎÚ‹ÍÂȘ.

√È ÛηӉÈÓ·˘Ô› Û˘ÁÁÚ·Ê›˜ ¤-¯Ô˘Ó Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ·fi ηÈÚfi ˘Ô‰Â›ÍÂÈfiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·Ú·‚ϤÂÙ·È ËÛËÌ·Û›· Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ Ë «ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈ΋ ·-ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·»-Ë ÛÈÁÔ˘ÚÈ¿ ÌÈ·˜ ÔÌ¿-‰·˜ Ì ÙȘ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈΤ˜ Ù˘ ÌÔÚ-ʤ˜ ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜, ·Í›Â˜, ·ÌÔÈ‚·›·Î·Ù·ÓÔÔ‡ÌÂÓ˜ Û˘ÌÂÚÈÊÔÚ˜,Ù·‡ÙÈÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ Î·È ·ÏÏËÏÂÁ-Á‡Ë. ∞˘Ù¿ ÔÊ›ÏÂÈ Ó· Û‚·ÛıÂ›Î·È Ó· ÂÎÊÚ¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi Û¯¤-‰ÈÔ «∂˘ÚÒË» ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈο ‰ÂÓı· ÂÈ˙‹ÛÂÈ.

∆· ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓ· ‰ÂÓ ÛËÌ·›-ÓÔ˘Ó Ê˘ÛÈο fiÙÈ ı· ¤ÛÔ˘Ó ÔÈ Á¤-Ê˘Ú˜ Ù˘ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ Ì Á›ÙÔ-Ó˜. ∫¿ı ¿ÏÏÔ. ∞ÏÏ¿ Ë «¤ÓÙ·Í‹»ÙÔ˘˜ ı· Â›Ó·È ‰˘Ó·Ù‹ ÌfiÓÔÓ Ì fi-ÚÔ˘˜ Ô˘ ‰‡ÛÎÔÏ· ÂÎÏËÚÒÓÔ-ÓÙ·È, fiˆ˜ Ì·˜ ‰Â›¯ÓÂÈ Ë ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ÂÌÂÈÚ›·. ¶Èı·ÓfiÓ ÙÔ 2004 Ë ∂È-

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συµβούλιο της Κοπεγχάγης, ένα από τα σηµαντικότερα στην ιστορία της Ένωσης.

Page 8: European Expression - Issue 48

6 K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÙÚÔ‹ Ô˘ ı· ·ÍÈÔÏÔÁ‹ÛÂÈ ÙȘ Â-ÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ, ı· ‰È·ÈÛÙÒÛÂÈ fiÙÈ Ë∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ‰ÂÓ ÂÎÏËÚÒÓÂÈ Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹-ÚÈ· Ô˘ ··ÈÙÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤Ó·Ú-ÍË ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂˆÓ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘.

ø˜ ÙÒÚ· ÂÍÂÙ¿Û·Ì ÌÈ¿ ÂΉÔ-¯‹ ÙÔ˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ̤ÏÏÔÓÙÔ˜-·˘Ù‹ Ô˘ ÚÔ·ÙÂÈ ˆ˜ Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·ÙÔ˘ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓÙÔ˜ Î·È Ô‰ËÁ› Û«ÔÏÔ¤Ó· ÛÙÂÓfiÙÂÚË (ÔÏÈÙÈ΋) ¤-ÓˆÛË» ÛÙË ‚¿ÛË ÌÈ·˜ ‰È·ÎÚÈÙ‹˜Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·˜. ™ÙË Û˘-Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ı· Û¯ÔÏËıԇ̠̠ÙË ‰Â‡-ÙÂÚË ÂΉԯ‹, Ô˘ ÚÔ·ÙÂÈ, ·-Ï¿, ˆ˜ Ú‹ÍË Ì ÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· ÙË˜Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ÂÓÔÔ›ËÛ˘.

2. ∞fi ÙÔ ª·Ú·Î¤˜ˆ˜ ÙÔ µÏ·‰È‚ÔÛÙfiÎ;

∫·Ù·Ï‡Ù˘ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ ‰È·ÊÔ-ÚÂÙÈÎÔ‡ ̤ÏÏÔÓÙÔ˜ Á›ÓÂÙ·ÈË ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ÛÙËÓ

∂∂. ∏ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ÌÂÙ·Û¯ËÌ·Ù›˙Â-Ù·È ÛÙËÓ ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ·˘Ù‹ Û ¤Ó·Ó¤Ô ‰ÈÂıÓ¤˜ ÌfiÚʈ̷ Ô˘ ÂÎÙ›-ÓÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ ª·Ú·Î¤˜ ˆ˜ ÙÔ µÏ·-‰È‚ÔÛÙfiÎ Î·È ‰È·¯ÂÈÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ÙËÓ Â-ÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋ ·ÁÔÚ¿. ∆Ô fiÚ·Ì· ·‡ÂÈϤÔÓ Ó· Â›Ó·È Ë ÔÏÈÙÈο Âӈ̤-ÓË ∂˘ÚÒË. ∞˘Ùfi ÂÓÓÔÔ‡ÛÂ Ô ∑È-ÛÎ¿Ú ÓÙ’ ∂ÛÙ·ÈÓ, fiÙ·Ó ÚÔÂȉÔ-Ô›ËÛ fiÙÈ Ë ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ «ÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ-˘» (5). ª·˙› Ì ÙËÓ ÚˆÙÔÊ·Ó‹·ÏÏ·Á‹ ÁˆÁÚ·Ê›·˜ ËÁ·›ÓÔ˘ÓÔ˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎfiÙÂÚ· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· Î·È Î˘-Ú›ˆ˜ Ë ·ÏÏ·Á‹ ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓÛÙfi¯ˆÓ, ÙˆÓ ‰ÔÌÒÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈ-ÙÈÎÒÓ Ù˘ ∂∂.

∆Ô ∂ӈ̤ÓÔ µ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ ˘ÔÛÙË-Ú›˙ÂÈ ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ·-Ó¿ÌÂÛ· Û ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÏfiÁÔ˘˜ Ô˘Û¯ÂÙ›˙ÔÓÙ·È Ì ÙÔÓ ÈÌÂÚÈ·ÏÈÛÙÈÎfi·Ù·‚ÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘, ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ Î·È ÁÈ·Ù›ı· ÙÂı› ÔÚÈÛÙÈο ¤Ó· Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÛÙ·Û¯¤‰È· ÁÈ· ÈÛ¯˘ÚfiÙÂÚ˜ ÔÌÔÛÔÓ-‰È·Î¤˜ ‰Ô̤˜. ÕÏψÛÙ ÙÔ ∂µÚfiÎÚÈÓ ÂÍ ·Ú¯‹˜ ÙËÓ È‰¤· ÌÈ·˜

ÌÂÁ¿Ï˘ ˙ÒÓ˘ ÂÏ¢ı¤ÚˆÓ Û˘-Ó·ÏÏ·ÁÒÓ (6). ∞˜ ÚÔÛı¤ÛÔ˘Ì fi-ÙÈ ÙËÓ Èı·Ó‹ ÂͤÏÈÍË Ô˘ ÂÚÈ-ÁÚ¿ÊÔ˘Ì ÛÙËÚ›˙Ô˘Ó ·ÊÂÏ›˜ Ô-Ï˘ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈΤ˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙˉÈÂ˘Ú˘Ì¤ÓË ∂˘ÚÒË Î·È ÔÈ ·ÌÂÚÈ-ηÓÈÎÔ› ۯ‰ȷÛÌÔ›. TÔ Âȯ›ÚËÌ·Ù˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋˜ ΢‚¤ÚÓËÛ˘ ›-Ó·È Ù˘ ›‰È·˜ ÔÈfiÙËÙ·˜ Ì ÙȘ È-ÛÙÔÚÈΤ˜ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ Úˆı˘-Ô˘ÚÁÔ‡ ∫. ™ËÌ›ÙË: ∏ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ Ù˘ ∂∂ Ïfi-Áˆ Ù˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋˜ Ù˘ ÛËÌ·Û›·˜Î·È Ë ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ Ù˘ ·ÓÔ›-ÁÂÈ ÙÔÓ ‰ÚfiÌÔ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ŒÓˆÛË.

∏ ŒÓˆÛË ı· ¤¯ÂÈ Î·È ÙfiÙ ÔÏ-ϷϘ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›Â˜. £· ˘Ô‚·-ÛÙ¿˙ÂÈ ÙËÓ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋ ËÁÂÌÔÓ›·.£· ‰È·ı¤ÙÂÈ Î·È Î¿ÔÈ· fiÚÁ·Ó·,·˜ ԇ̠¤Ó· ÂÚÈÊÂÚÂÈ·Îfi ™˘Ì-‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ∞ÛÊ·Ï›·˜, Ô˘ ı· ‰È¢-ıÂÙ› ÙȘ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓÌÂÏÒÓ Î·È ı· ÔÚÁ·ÓÒÓÂÈ ÙȘ ÛÙ·-ıÂÚÔÔÈËÙÈΤ˜ ·ÚÂÌ‚¿ÛÂȘ ÛÙÔÓÂÚ›Á˘ÚÔ. ∫·È ÚÔ˜ Ù· ̤۷ ı· ·-ÛΛ ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›Â˜ ·ÚfiÌÔȘ Ì·˘ÙÔ‡˜ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·Ó·ÙÂı› ÛÙÔÓ¢ÈÂıÓ‹ √ÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi ∂ÌÔÚ›Ô˘, ÛÙÔ¢ÈÂıÓ¤˜ ¡ÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈÎfi ∆·ÌÂ›Ô (ÁÈ·Ù· ÓÔÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈο) Î·È ÛÙË ¢ÈÂıÓ‹∆Ú¿Â˙· (ÁÈ· ÙË ‰È·ÚıÚˆÙÈ΋ ‚Ô‹-ıÂÈ·). ŸÌˆ˜, ÔÏϤ˜ ·fi ÙȘ ÛË-ÌÂÚÈÓ¤˜ ÎÔÈÓ¤˜ ÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ ı· ÙÚÔ-ÔÔÈËıÔ‡Ó ‰Ú·ÛÙÈο Ì ÚÒÙ˜˘Ô„‹ÊȘ ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓ‹ ·ÁÚÔÙÈÎ‹Î·È ÙË ‰È·ÚıÚˆÙÈ΋ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋, ÁÈ·Ù›Ô˘‰Â›˜ ı· Â›Ó·È ‰È·ÙÂıÂÈ̤ÓÔ˜ Ó··Ó·Ï¿‚ÂÈ ÙÔ ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂÙ¿ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜.

∏ ÂͤÏÈÍË ·˘Ù‹ ηı·˘Ù‹ ‰ÂÓ Â›-Ó·È ˘Ô¯ÚˆÙÈο η΋. ªÔÚ› ӷ¢ÓÔ‹ÛÂÈ Û˘ÓÔÏÈο ÙÔ ‰ÈÂıÓ¤˜ Â-ÌfiÚÈÔ, Ó· ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ÛÂÈ ¤Ó· ÛÙ·-ıÂÚfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ ÁÈ· ÂÂÓ‰‡ÛÂȘ,Ó· ˆÊÂÏ‹ÛÂÈ, fiˆ˜ ¿ÏψÛÙÂ Û˘-Ó¤‚Ë Ì¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ·, Ù· ‰˘ÙÈÎÔ¢-Úˆ·˚ο ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο ΤÓÙÚ·, Ó·ÌÂÈÒÛÂÈ ÙȘ ÂÏÏËÓÔÙÔ˘ÚÎÈΤ˜ Â-ÓÙ¿ÛÂȘ ÎÏ. ªÂÚÈÎÔ› ÈÛÙ‡ԢÓ

fiÙÈ ı· Â›Ó·È ‰˘Ó·Ù¤˜ ·ÎfiÌË Î·ÈÚÔˆıË̤Ó˜ ÌÔÚʤ˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·-Û›·˜, ÊÂÚ’ ÂÈÂ›Ó ÁÈ· Û˘ÛÙËÌ·ÙÈ-Τ˜ ‰ÈÂıÓ›˜ ÂÂÌ‚¿ÛÂȘ ˘fi ·ÌÂ-ÚÈηÓÈ΋ ËÁÂÌÔÓ›·. ∞ÏÏ¿, Ë ÂͤÏÈ-ÍË ı· ʤÚÂÈ Ó¤Â˜ ·ÓÙÈ·ÏfiÙËÙ˜,ÏfiÁˆ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ ·ÓÈÛÔًوÓÎ·È ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ ·ÍÈÒÓ, Î·È ÌÂ-Á¿Ï· ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙ¢ÙÈο ÚÂ‡Ì·Ù·Ô˘ ı· ÙÚ·ÓÙ¿ÍÔ˘Ó ÔÏfiÎÏËÚ· ¤-ıÓË. ™›ÁÔ˘Ú·, ‰ÂÓ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ Û¯¤ÛËÌ fi,ÙÈ ÎÔ˘‚·Ï¿ÌÂ, Ì ÙȘ ȉ¤Â˜Ô˘ ›¯·Ì ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ·, ÙȘ ÚÔÛ‰Ô-˘ Î·È ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜.

«ŒÓˆÛË» ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·

∆Ô ‰ÈÂ˘Ú˘Ì¤ÓÔ Û¯‹Ì· Ô˘ÛÎÈ·ÁÚ·Ê‹Û·ÌÂ, ̆ ÔÓÔ̇ÂÈ ·Îfi-ÌË Î·È ˆ˜ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚-Îfi «ÂÌ›˜», ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ Ù·˘Ùfi-ÙËÙ·, fiˆ˜ ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈ Ô ÈÛÙÔÚÈÎfi˜Heinrich Winkler Ì ÔÏϷϤ˜Û˘Ó¤ÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ıÂÛÌÔ‡˜ ηÈÙȘ ÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ Ù˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘. ªÔ-Ú› Ó· ÚÔηϤÛÂÈ Û‡Á¯˘ÛË ·-ÍÈÒÓ, Î·È ¤ÙÛÈ Ó· ˘ÔÛο„ÂÈ ÙÔ ¤-‰·ÊÔ˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ó¤Ô «ÙÂÏÈÎfi» Â˘Úˆ-·˚Îfi ™‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ· Î·È Ó· ÌÂÈÒÛÂȉڷ̷ÙÈο ÙȘ ÚÔÛ‰Ô˘ ÁÈ·ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚË ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ¤ÓˆÛË,ÛÙȘ Ôԛ˜ ÛÙËÚ›¯ıËÎÂ Ë ‰È·‰È-ηۛ· ÂÎfiÓËÛ‹˜ ÙÔ˘(7).

ªÈ· «ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ¤ÓˆÛË» Ì ÙËÓ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ̤۷ Î·È ÙËÓ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ÁÈ· ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ÂÓÙ¿ÍÂȘ ‰ÂÓ ·ÓÙ·-ÔÎÚ›ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙȘ ÚÔÛ‰Ô˘ ÔÏ-ÏÒÓ ÛËÌÂÚÈÓÒÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ,Ô˘ Èı·ÓfiÓ ı· ıÂÏ‹ÛÔ˘Ó Ó· ·Ô-¯ˆÚ‹ÛÔ˘Ó. ÿÛˆ˜ Â‰Ò ‚ÔËı¿ Ë«ıˆڛ· Ù˘ ˘ÂÚ¤ÎÙ·Û˘».¶Ú¿ÁÌ·ÙÈ, ˘Ôı¤ÙÔ˘Ì fiÙÈ ·fi ¤-Ó· ÛËÌÂ›Ô Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ Ë Â¤ÎÙ·ÛË ı·ÂÓÂÚÁÔÔÈ‹ÛÂÈ Ê˘ÁfiÎÂÓÙÚ˜ ‰˘-Ó¿ÌÂȘ Î·È ı· ÚÔηϤÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ·-Ú·ÎÌ‹ Ù˘ ∂∂.

∆·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ· ı· ÂÓÈÛ¯˘ıÔ‡Ó ÔÈÙ¿ÛÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙË ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÂÓfi˜«Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ˘Ú‹Ó·» ÂÓÙfi˜ ÙԢ¢ڇÙÂÚÔ˘ ¯·Ï·ÚÔ‡ Ï·ÈÛ›Ô˘- ·˜

Page 9: European Expression - Issue 48

K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 7

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Ô‡Ì Ù˘ Ó¤·˜ ∫ÔÈÓÔÔÏÈÙ›·˜ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ı· ÌÂÙ·ÏÏ·¯ı› Ë ∂∂.ŒÓ·˜ ÙÚfiÔ˜ Ó· Û˘ÛÙ·ı› Â›Ó·È Ë«ÂÓÈÛ¯˘Ì¤ÓË Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·» Ô˘ ‹-‰Ë ¤¯ÂÈ ÚÔ‚ÏÂÊı› ÛÙȘ ™˘Óı‹-Θ, ‰ËÏ·‰‹ Ë ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙËÙ· ÌÂÚÈ-ÎÒÓ ¯ˆÚÒÓ Ó· ÚÔ¯ˆÚÔ‡Ó Ì·˙›ÛÙ· ÂfiÌÂÓ· ‚‹Ì·Ù· ÔÏÔÎÏ‹Úˆ-Û˘ ‹ Ó· ··ÁÁÈÛÙÚÒÓÔÓÙ·È ·fi¿ÏÏ·. ∞Ó ‰ÂÓ Û˘ÛÙ·ı› ˘Ú‹Ó·˜,ÙfiÙ ·Ï¿ ÔÈ ‰˘ÛÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›Â˜ ı··˘ÍËıÔ‡Ó ‰Ú·Ì·ÙÈο. ∞ÎfiÌË Î·È ËÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· ÛÙÔ˘˜ ıÂÛÌÔ‡˜ ı·‰˘ÛÎÔÏ¢ı› ‰Â‰Ô̤ÓÔ˘ fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓÂÓÓÔԇ̠ٷ ›‰È· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· ÛÂ∂˘ÚÒË Î·È ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· fiÙ·Ó ¯ÚËÛÈ-ÌÔÔÈԇ̠ÙÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ ·ÓıÚÒÈ-Ó· ‰ÈηÈÒÌ·Ù·, ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·, ÎÚ¿-ÙÔ˜ ‰Èη›Ô˘. ∫·Ù¿ ¿Û· Èı·ÓfiÙË-Ù·, ÔÈ ‹‰Ë ˘·ÚÎÙ¤˜ ·ÓÙÈ·ÏfiÙË-Ù˜ Ô˘ ÛÙ¤ÎÔÓÙ·È ÂÌfi‰ÈÔ ÛÙËÓÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ¤ÓˆÛË ı· ÙÚÔÊÔ‰ÔÙË-ıÔ‡Ó Ì ¤Ó·Ó ·ÎfiÌË ÈÛ¯˘Úfi ·›-ÎÙË Î·È ÔÏÏÔ‡˜ Û˘Ó‰˘·ÛÌÔ‡˜.

√ ·Î¿Ï˘ÙÔ˜ ÏÔÁ·ÚÈ·ÛÌfi˜

∆¤ÏÔ˜, Ì ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ Â-Ú·ÈÙ¤Úˆ ‰È¢ڇÓÛˆÓ, ÙÔ ˙‹ÙËÌ·ÙÔ˘ ÎfiÛÙÔ˘˜ ÂÌÏÔ˘Ù›˙ÂÙ·È Ì Â-ÎÚËÎÙÈÎfi ÙÚfiÔ. √ÚÈṲ̂Ó˜ ¯Ò-Ú˜ ‹ ‰ÂÓ ı· ‰Â¯ıÔ‡Ó Ó· Û˘ÌÌÂ-Ù¿Û¯Ô˘Ó ÛÙÔ Ó¤Ô ÌfiÚʈ̷ ÁÈ· Ó·ÌË ÏËÚÒÓÔ˘Ó ‹ ·Ï¿ ı· ··ÈÙ‹-ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ÚÁËÛË ‹ ·Ó·ıÂÒ-ÚËÛË ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ¤Ï·ÛÛÔÓ ÎÔÈÓÒÓÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ Ô˘ ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰ÔÙÔ‡Ó(ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚË ∂˘ÚÒË ÏÔÈfiÓ).

¶Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ˘ÂÓı˘Ì›ÛÔ˘Ì ÌÂ-ÚÈο ‰Â‰ÔÌÂÓ·. ∆Ô Î·Ù¿ ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ÂÈÛfi‰ËÌ· ÛÙËÓ ∞Ó·ÙfiÏÈ· ·Ó¤Ú¯Â-Ù·È Û ÌfiÏȘ 500 ‰ÔÏ., ÂÓÒ ÛÙË¢‡ÛË Û 10.000 ‰ÔÏ ÂÓÒ ÙÔ Ì¤ÛÔηٷ ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ ÂÈÛfi‰ËÌ· Ù˘ ∆Ô˘Ú-Λ·˜ ‰ÂÓ ÍÂÂÚÓ¿ ÙÔ 22% ÙÔ˘ ̤-ÛÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡ (ÛÙËÓ ¶Ôψӛ· ›-Ó·È 40%). ∏ ÏËı˘ÛÌȷ΋ ·‡ÍËÛËÂ›Ó·È ÈÂÛÙÈ΋ (3.5% ÂÙËÛ›ˆ˜ÛÙËÓ ∞Ó·ÙfiÏÈ·) Î·È ÂÍ·ÓÂÌ›˙ÂÈ Ù·

ÔʤÏË Ù˘ ·Ó¿Ù˘Í˘. ∞ÎfiÌË Î·ÈÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ «Ë∞Ó·ÙfiÏÈ· ÂÂÎÙ›ÓÂÙ·È Î·È ÛÙȘÌÂÁ·ÏÔ˘fiÏÂȘ» (ª·Û¿Ì ∆ÈÌ›).°È· ÙȘ Ì¿˙˜ ·˘Ù¤˜ Ë ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÛÙËÓ∂∂ Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÂÈÛÈÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÁÈ· ÌÂÙ·Ó¿-ÛÙ¢ÛË, Ú¿ÁÌ· Ô˘ ÂÍËÁ› ÙÔÓÊ·ÈÓÔÌÂÓÈÎfi ·Ú¿‰ÔÍÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚-Îfi ÚÔÛ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘ ÈÛÏ·ÌÈ-ÎÔ‡ ÎfiÌÌ·ÙÔ˜ ∞∫P.

™˘ÓÂÒ˜, Ë Û˘¯Ó¿ ‰È·Ù˘Ô‡-ÌÂÓË ˘fiıÂÛË, .¯. ·fi ÙÔÓ ÁÂÚ-Ì·Ófi ˘Ô˘ÚÁfi °ÈfiÛη º›ÛÂÚ, fiÙÈÌ ÙË Ó¤· ‰È‡ڢÓÛË ı· ÂÓÈÛ¯˘-

ıÔ‡Ó Î·È ÔÈ ‰È·‰Èηۛ˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ-΋˜ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛ˘ fiˆ˜ Û˘Ó¤‚ËÛÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓ, Â›Ó·È ·Ó‰·ÊÈ΋.πÛ¯‡ÂÈ ÙÔ ·ÓÙ›ıÂÙÔ.

3. ∆Ô Èı·ÓfiÙÂÚÔ ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈÔÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ.

∆ÂÏÂÈÒÓÔÓÙ·˜ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ··-ÓÙ‹ÛÔ˘Ì ÛÙÔ ÂÚÒÙËÌ· ÔÈfi·fi Ù· ‰˘fi «ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈ·» ›ӷÈ

Èı·ÓfiÙÂÚÔ. ∫·Ù¿ ÙËÓ ÂÎÙ›ÌËÛ‹ÌÔ˘ ÔÈ ÙÚ¤¯Ô˘Û˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ ηÈ,ÂȉÈÎfiÙÂÚ·, ÔÈ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂȘÁÈ· ¤Ó· «™‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ·» ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÙËÓÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ ∂˘ÚÒË, fi¯È ÙÔ˘˜ ·Á-ÁÏÔ۷͈ÓÈÎÔ‡˜ ۯ‰ȷÛÌÔ‡˜. ø˜ÙÒÚ· Î·È ·Ú¿ ÙȘ ·‚‚·ÈfiÙËÙÂ˜Ô˘ ÔÊ›ÏÔÓÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋‡ÊÂÛË Î·È ÛÙÔÓ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎfi ËÁÂ-ÌÔÓÈÛÌfi, ÙÔ ÁÂÓÈÎfi Ï·›ÛÈÔ, Ë ÊÈ-ÏÔÛÔÊ›· Î·È ÔÈ Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈ̤Ó˜

ÚÔÙÂÚ·ÈfiÙËÙ˜ Ù˘ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ¿-Ù¢Û˘ ·˘Ù‹˜ Â›Ó·È Û˘Ì‚·Ù¤˜ ÌÂÙÔ ÛÂÓ¿ÚÈÔ Ù˘ ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋˜ Û˘Ó¤-¯ÂÈ·˜ Î·È Ù˘ ‰È·ÎÚÈÙ‹˜ Â˘Úˆ·˚-΋˜ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·˜. ªÂ ¿ÏÏ· ÏfiÁÈ·,fi,ÙÈ Û˘˙ËÙԇ̠ۋÌÂÚ· ‰ÂÓ ı· ›-¯Â ÓfiËÌ· ·Ó ËÁ·›Ó·Ì ÁÈ· ÙËÓ·ÁÁÏÔ۷͈ÓÈ΋ ÂΉԯ‹ Ù˘ ∂˘-ÚÒ˘ ˆ˜ ÂÓfi˜ ÂÚÈÊÂÚÂÈ·ÎÔ‡ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡, ÛÙÔÓ ÔÔ›Ô Û˘ÌÌÂ-Ù¤¯Ô˘Ó ¯ÒÚ˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ∞Û›· ηÈÙË µfiÚÂÈ· ∞ÊÚÈ΋! ∏ ™˘Ó¤Ï¢ÛËÎ·È Ô ‰È¿ÏÔÁÔ˜ Ô˘ ÙË Û˘Óԉ‡ÂȤ¯Ô˘Ó ÓfiËÌ· ÌfiÓÔ Û ۯ¤ÛË ÌÂÙÔÓ ÛÙfi¯Ô Ù˘ «ÔÏÔ¤Ó· ÛÙÂÓfiÙÂ-Ú˘ (ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜) ¤ÓˆÛ˘» Î·È ÔÛÙfi¯Ô˜ ·˘Ùfi˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ‚·ı‡ÙÂÚ˜ Ú›-˙˜. ÀÂÓı˘Ì›˙ˆ fiÙÈ ÎÂÓÙÚÈο ı¤-Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ‰È·‰ÈηÛÈÒÓ ·˘ÙÒÓ Â›-Ó·È

ñ Ù· ·ÓıÚÒÈÓ· ‰ÈηÈÒÌ·Ù·, ñ Ë ‰ËÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈ΋ ÓÔÌÈÌÔÔ›ËÛË

ÙˆÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÒÓ ıÂÛÌÒÓ, ñ Ë ÂÌÏÔ΋ Ù˘ «ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜

ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ» ñ Ë ‚ÂÏÙ›ˆÛË Ù˘ «·ÌÔÈ‚·›·˜ Â-

ÈÙ‹ÚËÛ˘» Û ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù· ÔÈÎÔÓÔ-ÌÈÎÒÓ Î·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ı-Ì›ÛÂˆÓ ÎÏ.

ª¿ÏÈÛÙ·, Ë È‰È· Ë ÈÛÙÔÚ›· Ù˘∂˘ÚÒ˘ ÙËÓ ˆı› ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·-Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË ·˘Ù‹! ∫·È Ô ‰È¿ÏÔÁÔ˜Ô˘ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÂÙ·È Â›Ó·È ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ-Îfi˜ ‰È¿ÏÔÁÔ˜ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Ì Â-Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔ ÓfiËÌ· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∞Ó·ÙfiÏÈ·‹ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ Ù· ÏÔÈ· ÂӉȷʤ-ÚÔ˘Û· ∞ÏÁÂÚ›·! ∆· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· ‰Ë-ÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈ΋˜ ÓÔÌÈÌÔÔ›ËÛ˘ ÙˆÓ Â-ÓˆÛÈ·ÎÒÓ ıÂÛÌÒÓ Ô˘ Û˘˙ËÙÔ‡-ÓÙ·È Û‹ÌÂÚ· ‰ÂÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ôχ ÓfiË-Ì·, ·˜ Ô‡ÌÂ, ÛÙËÓ ŒÓˆÛË ÙÔ˘ª·ÁÎÚ¤Ì ‹ Û ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô ‰ÈËÂÈÚˆ-ÙÈÎÒÓ ‰È·ÛÙ¿ÛÂˆÓ ÌfiÚʈ̷.

«∞ÌÔÈ‚·›· ·Ú¤Ì‚·ÛË»Î·È ÂıÓÈÎÈÛÌfi˜.

£· ÂÍËÁ‹Ûˆ ÙȘ ·¤Ú·ÓÙ˜ ‰˘-ÛÎÔϛ˜ ÂÓۈ̿وÛ˘ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘Ú-Λ·˜ ÛÙÔ ÂÍÂÏÈÛÛfiÌÂÓÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚-

❝ ∏ ∂∂ ÏÔÈfiÓÎÈÓÂ›Ù·È Û‹ÌÂÚ·ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓηÙ‡ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ÂÌ‚¿ı˘ÓÛ˘ÛÙÔÓ ÈÛÙÔÚÈο‰È·ÌÔÚʈ̤ÓÔÂ˘Úˆ·˚Îfi¯ÒÚÔ

Page 10: European Expression - Issue 48

8 K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Îfi Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Ì ‰˘fi ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·-Ù·.

∆· ıÂÌÂÏÈÒ‰Ë ‰ÈηÈÒÌ·Ù·,ÚÒÙÔÓ, Û˘ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ¤Ó·Ó ¢·›ÛıË-ÙÔ ÙÔ̤·. §fiÁˆ Ù˘ ¢·ÈÛıËÛ›·˜ÙˆÓ ΢‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛˆÓ, ·ÊÔ‡ ÔÔÈ·-‰‹ÔÙ ۯÂÙÈ΋ Û˘˙‹ÙËÛË Û˘ÓÂ-¿ÁÂÙ·È Â¤Ì‚·ÛË ÛÙÔÓ ˘Ú‹Ó·ÙˆÓ Û¯¤ÛÂˆÓ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È ÔÏÈ-ÙÒÓ Û οı ¯ÒÚ·, Ë ™˘Óı∂∂ Û˘-ÌÏËÚÒıËΠ̠‰È·Ù¿ÍÂȘ ÁÈ· Ô-χÏÔΘ ‰È·‰Èηۛ˜ ΢ÚÒÛˆÓÛ ‚¿ÚÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÏÒÓ Ô˘ Ù· ·-Ú·‚È¿˙Ô˘Ó. ∂ÈϤÔÓ, ÔÈ Î˘‚ÂÚÓ‹-ÛÂȘ ˘ÈÔı¤ÙËÛ·Ó ÙË Ã¿ÚÙ· ˆ˜ Ô-ÏÈÙÈÎfi ΛÌÂÓÔ (¡›Î·È· 2000) ηÈÛ‹ÌÂÚ· ÂÙÔÈÌ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È Ó· ÙËÓ ÂÓ-ۈ̷ÙÒÛÔ˘Ó ÛÙË Ó¤· ™˘Óı∂∂ ο-ÓÔÓÙ¿˜ ÙËÓ ¤ÙÛÈ Î·È Ù˘Èο ‰Â-ÛÌ¢ÙÈ΋. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ‚¤‚·È· ÚÔ-‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹˜ fiÏˆÓ ÙˆÓÛ¯ÂÙÈÎÒÓ ‰È·Ù¿ÍˆÓ, ·ÏÏ¿ ·ÎfiÌËÎ·È Ì ¯·Ï·Ú‹ ÂÚÌËÓ›· Ë ∆Ô˘Ú-Λ· ‰ÂÓ ı· Ù·›ÚÈ·˙ Û fiÏ· ·˘Ù¿.

∆Ô ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ¿ Ì·˜¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙÔÓ «ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎfi ˘-ÏÒÓ·». ∂‰Ò ÔÈ Î˘‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂȘ ¤-¯Ô˘Ó Û˘ÌʈӋÛÂÈ ÎÔÈÓÔ‡˜ ÛÙfi-¯Ô˘˜ Î·È ¤¯Ô˘Ó ηıÈÂÚÒÛÂÈ ÚÔˆ-ıË̤Ó˜ ÌÔÚʤ˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ –ÙÔ ÎÔÈÓfi ÓfiÌÈÛÌ·, ÙË ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔ-ÌÈ΋ ÂÈı·Ú¯›·, ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘÛ ·ÁÔÚ¤˜ ÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ Î·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈ-΋ ÚÔÛÙ·Û›·. ∞Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ·, ÔÈ ‰¤-Û̘ ·˘Ù¤˜ ·ÏÏËÏÔÂÍ·ÚÙÒÓÙ·È.∆Ô ÛÔ˘‰·ÈfiÙÂÚÔ Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÔÈ Î·-ÓfiÓ˜ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÂÊ·ÚÌfi˙ÔÓÙ·ÈÌfiÓÔÓ ·Ó ÂÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Ó ÌÂÙ·ÌÔ-ÓÙ¤ÚÓ˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂıÓÈ-΋ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·. √È Î·ÓfiÓ˜ ·˘Ùԛ›Ù ·Ê·ÈÚÔ‡Ó ·fi ÙÔ ÂıÓÈÎfi ÎÚ¿-ÙÔ˜ ·ÚÌÔ‰ÈfiÙËÙ˜, .¯. ÁÈ· ÙË ÓÔ-ÌÈÛÌ·ÙÈ΋ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋, ›Ù ÙÔÔıÂ-ÙÔ‡Ó ÙË ‰Ú¿ÛË ÙÔ˘ Û ÎÔÈÓ¤˜ ÂÈ-ı·Ú¯›Â˜, ‰ËÏ·‰‹ Û ‰È·‰Èηۛ˜·ÌÔÈ‚·›·˜ ÂÓË̤ڈÛ˘ ηÈÈ ÛÂÔÏϤ˜ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂȘ ÂÈÙ‹ÚËÛË˜Î·È ·Ú¤Ì‚·Û˘. ∏ ·Ô‰Ô¯Ë fi-ÏˆÓ ·˘ÙÒÓ ÙˆÓ ‰È·‰ÈηÛÈÒÓ ÚÔ-

¸Ôı¤ÙÂÈ ÙËÓ ÌÂÚÈ΋ ˘¤Ú‚·ÛËÙ˘ ·Ú·‰ÔÛȷ΋˜ ¤ÓÓÔÈ·˜ Ù˘ Â-ıÓÈ΋˜ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜, Ú¿ÁÌ· Ô˘Û ÁÂÓÈΤ˜ ÁÚ·Ì̤˜ ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘Ì‚Â›,·Ú¿ ÙȘ ·Ó·fiÊ¢ÎÙ˜ ÙÚÈ‚¤˜Ô˘ Û˘ÓÔ‰Â‡Ô˘Ó ÙËÓ ÂͤÏÈÍË ·˘-Ù‹ Î·È ÙȘ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈΤ˜ Ù·¯‡ÙË-Ù˜ ÚfiÛ‰ÂÛ˘! ¢ÂÓ ÂÎÏËÚÒÓÔ-ÓÙ·È ÔÈ ÚÔ¸Ôı¤ÛÂȘ ·˘Ù¤˜ ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·, fiÔ˘ ‰È·¯¤ÂÙ·È ¤Ó·˜ÔÍ˘Ì¤ÓÔ˜ ÂıÓÈÎÈÛÌfi˜, Î·È ‰‡ÛÎÔ-Ï· ı· ÂÎÏËÚˆıÔ‡Ó Ù· ÂfiÌÂÓ·15-20 ¯ÚfiÓÈ·.

∆Ú¤¯Ô˘Û· ‰È‡ڢÓÛËÎ·È Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·.

∏ ∂∂ ÏÔÈfiÓ ÎÈÓÂ›Ù·È Û‹ÌÂÚ·ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈ-΋˜ ÂÌ‚¿ı˘ÓÛ˘ ÛÙÔÓ ÈÛÙÔÚÈο‰È·ÌÔÚʈ̤ÓÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ¯ÒÚÔ.∏ ÙˆÚÈÓ‹ ‰È‡ڢÓÛË ‰ÂÓ ·ÏÏ¿˙ÂÈÔÏÏ¿ Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù· ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ‡ÙÔÁÈ·Ù› Á›ÓÂÙ·È Ì ‚¿ÛË Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ·Î·È ÙȘ ·Ú¯¤˜ Ô˘ ›¯·Ó ηıÔÚÈ-Ûı› ÓˆÚ›˜, ‹‰Ë ÙÔ 1993 ¿ÏÈ ÛÙËÓ∫ÔÂÁ¯¿ÁË. ™‡Ìʈӷ Ì ·˘Ù¿ ÔÈ˘Ô„‹ÊȘ ¯ÒÚ˜ ÁÈ· Ó· Á›ÓÔ˘Ó̤ÏË Ú¤ÂÈ, ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· Û ¿ÏÏ·,«Ó· ÂÙ‡¯Ô˘Ó ÛÙ·ıÂÚfiÙËÙ· ÛÙÔ˘˜ıÂÛÌÔ‡˜ Ô˘ ηÙÔ¯˘ÚÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙË¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·, ÙÔ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜ ‰Èη›Ô˘,Ù· ·ÓıÚÒÈÓ· ‰ÈηÈÒÌ·Ù· Î·È ÙÔÓÛ‚·ÛÌfi ÙˆÓ ÌÂÈÔÓÔًوӻ.

∂Ó ÔÏÏÔ›˜, Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· ÂΛӷÙ˘ ∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘, fiˆ˜ Î·È Ó· Ù·ÂÚÌËÓ‡ÛÔ˘ÌÂ, Û˘ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ¤Ó·‰˘Ó·Ùfi ÔÚÈÛÌfi Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·˜! ª·˙› Ì ÌÂÙ·ÁÂÓ¤-ÛÙÂÚ˜ Û˘ÌÏËÚÒÛÂȘ Î·È ÂÍÂȉÈ-·ÛÂȘ ÚÔÛʤÚÔ˘Ó ˆ˜ Û‡ÓÔÏÔ¤Ó· Ú·ÎÙÈÎfi Ô‰ËÁfi ÁÈ· Ù· ÂfiÌÂ-Ó· ‚‹Ì·Ù· Ù˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘.

∏ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ‰ÂÓ ‹Ú ÙËÓ ËÌÂÚÔ-ÌËÓ›· Ô˘ ÂÈ˙ËÙÔ‡Û ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤-Ó·ÚÍË ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂˆÓ ¤ÓÙ·-͢ ÁÈ·Ù› ‰ÂÓ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÊ·ÚÌfiÛÂÈ ÙȘÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ Ô˘ ·-·ÈÙÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÁÈ· Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ Ù˘∂∂. ∞ÎfiÌË, ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ‚¤‚·ÈÔ fiÙÈ Ë

¤ÎıÂÛË Ù˘ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ ÙÔ 2004ÁÈ· ÙȘ ÚÔfi‰Ô˘˜ ÛÙË Á›ÙÔÓ· ı·ÂÈÓ·È ıÂÙÈ΋, ÂÓÒ ÌÔÚ› ˆ˜ ÙfiÙÂÓ· ·Ó·˙ËÙËı› ‰È¤ÍÔ‰Ô˜ Û ¤Ó·‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎfi ÚfiÙ˘Ô Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·-Û›·˜ ÂÎÙfi˜ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘. ™Â ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛËÌ ÙËÓ ¿Ô„Ë ÙÔ˘ Úˆı˘Ô˘Ú-ÁÔ‡, ÓÔÌ›˙ˆ fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ ·ÔÙÂÏ› ÂÈ-ÛÙÈÎfi ÏfiÁÔ Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ Ì¤ÏÔ˜ Ù˘ ∂∂Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ fiÙÈ Â›¯Â ο-ÔÙ Êı¿ÛÂÈ ˆ˜ ÙË µÈ¤ÓÓË. ÕÏÏ·Â›Ó·È Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ·.

µ¤‚·È·, ÔÈ ÂÓ‰ÔÂÓˆÛȷΤ˜ ‰È·-ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÂȤ‰Ô˘ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋˜ ·Ó¿-Ù˘Í˘, ·Ú·‰fiÛÂˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜,ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÒÓ ÚÔÛ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈÛÌÒÓÎ·È ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ ·ÍÈÒÓ ı· ÌÂÁ·ÏÒ-ÛÔ˘ÓÛÙËÓ ∂∂ ÙˆÓ 25 ‹ 27. √È ¯Ò-Ú˜ Ù˘ ∫∞∂ .¯. Ô˘ ÌfiÏȘ Í¤Ê˘-Á·Ó ·fi ÙË ÛÔ‚ÈÂÙÈ΋ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·ı· Ú¤ÂÈ ÏÔÁÈο Ó· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÌÂÁ·-χÙÂÚË Â˘·ÈÛıËÛ›· Û ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù·ÂıÓÈ΋˜ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·˜ ·fi Ù· ·-Ï·È¿ ̤ÏË Ù˘ ∂√∫ Ì ÙË Ì·ÎÚÔ-¯ÚfiÓÈ· ¿ÛÎËÛË Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜ ÛÙÔÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎfi Ï·›ÛÈÔ. √È ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜·˘Ù¤˜ ÌÔÚ› Ó· ÚÔηϤÛÔ˘ÓÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· ÛÙË ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙˆÓıÂÛÌÒÓ Ù˘ ∂∂. ∞ÏÏ¿, ÁÈ· fi¯È ·-ÓÂÍ‹ÁËÙÔ˘˜ ÏfiÁÔ˘˜, Ù· Ó¤· ̤ÏËıˆÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È (Î·È Â›Ó·È) ̤ÚÔ˜ ÙË˜Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ÂÓfiÙËÙ·˜, Ë ·ÔÎÔ‹ÙÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙË ¢‡ÛË ÈÛÙÔÚÈÎfi ‰È¿-ÏÂÈÌÌ·, Ë (·Ó)¤ÓÙ·Í‹ ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘Ì-‚·Ù‹ Ì ÙÔ ÁÂÓÈÎfi ̄ ·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfiÙ˘ ∂˘ÚÒ˘- ÙËÓ «ÂÓfiÙËÙ· ̉ȷÊÔÚ¤˜». ™Â Û¯¤ÛË Ì ÙËÓ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÔÈ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÔ ¿-Óˆ ¯¤ÚÈ, fi¯È Ë ÂÓfiÙËÙ·!

4. ™‡ÓÔ„Ë Î·È Û˘Ì¤Ú·-ÛÌ·:∏ ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ ∂˘ÚÒËÌ·˜ ‚ÔχÂÈ.

∏∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ·¤¯ÂÈ Ôχ Î·È ı··¤¯ÂÈ ·fi Ù· Â˘Úˆ·˚ο‰Â‰Ô̤ӷ. ∏ ¤ÓÙ·Í‹ Ù˘

‰ÂÓ ı· Â›Ó·È Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ·Ó Ë ∂∂ÌÂÙ·Û¯ËÌ·ÙÈÛı› Û ¤Ó· ‰È·ÊÔÚÂ-

Page 11: European Expression - Issue 48

K Y ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 9

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÙÈÎfi ÌfiÚʈ̷ fiˆ˜ ÂÈ˙ËÙÔ‡ÓÔÏÏÔ›, .¯. Û ¤Ó· ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi ÔÈ-ÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋˜ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›·˜, ÂÏ¢ı¤-ÚÔ˘ ÂÌÔÚ›Ô˘ Î·È ‰ÈÂıÓÒÓ ÂÂÌ-‚¿ÛˆÓ. ∏ ›ÛËÌË ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ ÛÙ¿-ÛË Â›Ó·È, Ì ‚¿ÛË Ù· ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂ-Ó·, ·ÓÙÈÊ·ÙÈ΋: ∏ ΢‚¤ÚÓËÛË ·fiÙË ÌÈ· ÌÂÚÈ¿ ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›˙ÂÈ (ıÔÏ¿¿ÓÙˆ˜) ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷο Û¯Â‰È·Î·È ·fi ÙËÓ ¿ÏÏË Ì ı¤ÚÌË ÙËÓ ¤-ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Ô˘ ı· Û‹Ì·-Ó ÙÔ ÔÚÈÛÙÈÎfi Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘˜.

∫·È, ÁÈ· Ó· ÌË Í¯ӿÌ ÙÔ ÂıÓÈ-Îfi Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓ, Ë ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ Ì·˜ ∂˘-ÚÒË Â›Ó·È ‚ÔÏÈÎfiÙÂÚË ÁÈ· ÌÈÎÚ¤˜¯ÒÚ˜ fiˆ˜ Ë ∂ÏÏ¿‰·.. ™ÙÔ Î¿ÙˆÎ¿Ùˆ ·Ô‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÙ·È ÔÏÈÙÈο Èfi·ÏÏËϤÁÁ˘· ÁÈ· Ù· ̤ÏË Ù˘ fiÙ·Ó·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó Ù· ÌÂÁ¿Ï· ·̷-Ù· ÙˆÓ ÂÍ·ÁÚÈˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ·ÁÔÚÒÓ. ∏Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ· ÌÔÚ› Ó·ÚÔÛÙÂı› ÛÙËÓ ÂıÓÈ΋. ∞ÏÏ¿ fi¯ÈË È‰ÈfiÙËÙ· ÙÔ˘ ̤ÏÔ˘˜ Û ¤Ó· ‰ÈË-ÂÈÚˆÙÈÎfi ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi ÂÌÔÚ›Ô˘!

°È·Ù› ‰ÂÓ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È Ë È-ÛÙÔÚÈ΋ ∂˘ÚÒË Ë ÚÒÙË Ì·˜ ÂÈ-ÏÔÁ‹; °È· Ó· ı¤Ûˆ ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ·:∏ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÌÈ·˜ ·ÁÓÒÚÈÛÙ˘ (ÏfiÁˆ·ÁÁÏÔ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÒÓ Û¯Â‰È·ÛÌÒÓ)∫‡ÚÔ˘, Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ı· Ú˘ıÌ›˙ÂÈ ·˘-

ÙÔÙÂÏÒ˜ Ù· ÙÔ˘ Ô›ÎÔ˘ Ù˘, ‰ÂÓ ı·Â›Ó·È Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· Ù˘ ÛËÌÂÚÈÓ‹˜ ∫‡-ÚÔ˘ (Ì fiÏ· Ù· ‰ÈηÈÒÌ·Ù· Ô˘·ÔÚÚ¤Ô˘Ó ·fi ·˘Ù‹), ı· ÂÍ·ÈÚ›-Ù·È ÂÓ ÔÏÏÔ›˜ ·fi ÙÔ ÎÔÈÔÙÈÎfiÎÂÎÙË̤ÓÔ, ı· «ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓ›» ·ÓÂ-ͤÏÂÁÎÙ˜ ·ÁÁÏÈΤ˜ ‚¿ÛÂȘ ηȉÂÓ ı· ¤¯ÂÈ Ô‡Ù ÙËÓ ÔÏ˘Ù¤ÏÂÈ·Ó· ÂÈÓÔ‹ÛÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÂıÓÈÎfi Ù˘ ‡ÌÓÔ,

‰ÈηÈÔÏÔÁ›, ·fi ÙË ÛÎÔÈ¿ ÙÔ˘Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ̤ÏÏÔÓÙÔ˜, ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔ-Ófi˜ fiÙÈ ˘ÂÚıÂÌ·Ù›˙Ô˘Ì ÛÙÔ ˙‹-ÙËÌ· Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘; ¢ÂÓ¤¯ÂÈ Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ ÂıÓÈ΋ ‹, ·Ó ı¤ÏÂ-ÙÂ, ÂıÓÈΤ˜ Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ˜; ¶ÔÈfi˜ ı··Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÈ ÔÈfiÓ ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ·ÛÙÔÓ ıÚ˘ÌÌ·ÙÈṲ̂ÓÔ Î·ıÚ¤ÊÙËÙ˘ ÈÛÙÔÚ›·˜;

(1) µÏ. Û˘Ó¤ÓÙ¢ÍË ÙÔ˘ Úˆı˘Ô˘ÚÁÔ‡ ∫.™ËÌ›ÙË ÛÙËÓ Le

Monde, 8.1.03.

(2) µÏ. ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, 20.1.2003. µÏ. fï˜ Ù· ΛÌÂÓ·

ÙˆÓ ª¿ÓÔ˘ ™ÙÂÊ·Ó›‰Ë ÛÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi ÙÔ ∞ÓÙ›, Ù.778/

27.12.2002 Î·È ∆¿ÎË £ÂÔ‰ˆÚfiÔ˘ÏÔ˘ «∂˘ÚÒ˘ ÂÁÎÒ-

ÌÈÔÓ» ÛÙËÓ ∫˘ÚȷοÙÈÎË ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, 22.12.2002, Ô˘ ˘-

ԉ›¯ÓÔ˘Ó ¤Ó· ÂÁ΢ÚfiÙÂÚÔ ÙÚfiÔ ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛ˘ ÙÔ˘ ˙ËÙ‹-

Ì·ÙÔ˜.

(3) °È· ÙȘ ·‚‚·ÈfiÙËÙ˜ Ô˘ ‚·Ú·›ÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋

ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ‚Ï. ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· Û ¿ÏÏ· ÙȘ Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ ·ÈÛÈfi‰Ô͘ ·-

ӷχÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ ∫·˙¿ÎÔ˜, ¶. Î.·. ∏ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· Î·È ÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚Îfi

̤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜. π. ™È‰¤Ú˘, ∞ı‹Ó· 2001. ∂›Û˘ ÁÈ· ÙÔ

ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚÔ Î·È ıÂÌÂÏÈ·Îfi ÂÚÒÙËÌ· ·Ó ÙÔ Ï·˚Îfi πÛÏ¿Ì Â›Ó·È

¤Ó· ·‰È·¤Ú·ÛÙÔ Î¤Ï˘ÊÔ˜ Ô˘ ·Óı›ÛÙ·Ù·È ÛÙË ‰˘ÙÈ΋ ÌÔÚ-

Ê‹ Ù˘ ÓÂÔÙÂÚÈÎfiÙËÙ·˜ ‚Ï. Lewis, B. Î.·. ∆Ô ÈÛÏ·ÌÈÎfi ·›ÓÈÁ-

Ì·. §·˚ÎÔÔ›ËÛË Î·È ÓÂÔÙÂÚÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÛÙÔÓ ÈÛÏ·ÌÈÎfi ÎfiÛÌÔ,

ÂΉfiÛÂȘ §Â‚È¿ı·Ó, ∞ı‹Ó· 1992. ∆ibi, Bassam: ∞ufbruch am

Bosporus. Die Türkei zwischen Europa und dem Islamismus,

Diana Verlag, 1998. º˘ÛÈο, Ë Û¯ÂÙÈ΋ ÊÈÏÔÏÔÁ›· Â›Ó·È ·¤-

Ú·ÓÙË.

(4) ∂liot, T.S. “The Unity of European Culture”, ÛÙÔ˘ ›‰ÈÔ˘

Notes towards the definition of culture, Faber and Faber,

1954. À¿Ú¯ÂÈ ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ ÌÂÙ¿ÊÚ·ÛË ·fi ÙËÓ ¡·Ó¿ ∏Û·›·

ÛÙȘ ÂΉfiÛÂȘ ¶Ï¤ıÚÔÓ (1980, 2000), ÛÂÏ. 150 Î·È 155 (Ù˘

ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋˜ ÌÂÙ¿ÊÚ·Û˘).

(5) BÏ. ™˘Ó¤ÓÙ¢ÍË ÙÔ˘ G. d’Estaing ÛÙËÓ Le Monde. µÏ.

ÂÊËÌÂÚ›‰· Ë ∫·ıËÌÂÚÈÓ‹ 12.11.2002 Î·È 13.11.2002.

(6) √È ‚ÚÂÙ·ÓÈΤ˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ·ÓÙÈηÙÔÙÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙÔ ·-

ÊȤڈ̷ Ì ÙÔÓ Ù›ÙÏÔ Turkey belongs to Europe ÛÙÔ ÂÚÈÔ‰È-

Îfi The Economist, December 7th, 2002.

(7) Winkler H.A. “ Soll Europa künftig an den Irak grenzen?

Fraknfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11.12. 2002. O ÈÛÙÔÚÈÎfi˜

Winkler Û˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï‡ÂÈ Î·È ÙÔÓ Î·ÁÎÂÏ¿ÚÈÔ Schröder.

™ËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ

The article deals with two probable scenarios for the European future. In

the first one (“historical Europe”) the integration process becomes deeper,

thus satisfying the original aspiration for an “ever closer Union”. The basic

requirements for this to come about is that the borders of the Union are

finally defined. In the second scenario the Union extends from “Maraques

to Vladivostok”. The course could be taken under the influence of the USA,

which strongly support the EU accession of Turkey and, occasionally, of

Russia. In this case, the Union is transformed into a transcontinental

international organization. It would still accomplish useful functions in the

international system, but some established common policies (ex. CAP) and

the asprirations for new ones would be abandoned. The scenario does not

reflect the European “we”. The article argues, that, despite current

disturbances, the Europeans today favour “historical Europe” within well

defined borders and that this preference underpins the deliberations about

a “constitutional Treaty”.

Abstract

The future of Europe: Two scenarios

Page 12: European Expression - Issue 48

10 ∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

∏ÂÓÙ·Íȷ΋ ÔÚ›· Ù˘Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜ ›¯Â ÛÙÔ ·-ÚÂÏıfiÓ Û˘Ó‰Âı› ¿ÚÚË-ÎÙ· –Î·È ›Ûˆ˜ Ï·Óı·-

Ṳ̂ӷ1- Ì ÙËÓ Â›ÌÔÓ· ·ÚÓËÙÈ΋ÛÙ¿ÛË Ù˘ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ ·¤Ó·ÓÙÈ ÛÂÔÔÈ·‰‹ÔÙ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· Ù˘∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Ó· ÚÔÛÂÁÁ›ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÓˆÛË. ªÂÙ¿ ÙÔ ∂˘-Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ(1999), ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ·¤‰ˆÛ ÛÙËÓ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÙËÓ È‰ÈfiÙËÙ· Ù˘ ˘Ô„‹-ÊÈ·˜ ÚÔ˜ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ¯ÒÚ·˜, ηı›-ÛÙ·Ù·È Û·Ê¤˜ fiÙÈ ÙÔ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎfiveto ‰ÂÓ ‹Ù·Ó Ô‡ÙÂ Ô ÌfiÓÔ˜, ·Ï-Ï¿ Ô‡ÙÂ Î·È Ô ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚÔ˜ÏfiÁÔ˜ Ô˘ ÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Û ÙËÓ ∆Ô˘Ú-Λ· Ì·ÎÚÈ¿ ·fi ÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎfiÌfiÚʈ̷.

∆Ô ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ∫ÔÚ˘Ê‹˜ Ù˘∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘ ÙÔÓ ¢ÂΤ̂ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘2002, ›Ûˆ˜ ÙÔ ÈÔ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÛÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ŒÓˆÛ˘, ‰ÂÓ Â›¯Â ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ËÁ¤-Ù˜ Ù˘ Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜ ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÌÂÓfiÌÂ-ÓË Î·Ù¿ÏËÍË, ηıÒ˜ Ô Î·ıÔÚÈ-ÛÌfi˜ Ù˘ ËÌÂÚÔÌËÓ›·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤-Ó·ÚÍË ÙˆÓ ÂÓÙ·ÍÈ·ÎÒÓ ‰È·Ú·Á-Ì·Ù‡ÛÂˆÓ ·Ó·‚Ï‹ıËΠÁÈ· ٷ٤ÏË ÙÔ˘ 2004.

∏ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚË ÂÍ‹ÁËÛË ÁÈ·ÙËÓ ¿Î·ÚË ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ· Â˘Úˆ·˚΋

ÂÚȤÙÂÈ· Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Ú¤ÂÈÓ· ·Ó·˙ËÙËı› ÛÙËÓ Ì¤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂ-Ú· ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ Ù˘ Û ı¤Ì·Ù· ηıÔ-ÚÈÛÙÈο ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ô‰Ô¯‹ ‹ ·fiÚ-ÚÈ„Ë Ù˘ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÎfiÏÔ˘˜ Ù˘∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘, ‹ÙÔÈ ÛÙ·ÔÏÈÙÈο Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ·Ô˘ Ë ŒÓˆÛË ¤ıÂÛ ÛÙËÓ ∫ÔÂÁ-¯¿ÁË ÙÔ 1993.

∂ÍÂÙ¿˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙË Û˘ÌÌfiÚʈÛËÙ˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Ì ٷ ÔÏÈÙÈο ÎÚÈ-Ù‹ÚÈ· ‰È·ÈÛÙÒÓÔ˘Ì fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ Ù·

ÈηÓÔÔÈ› ·ÎfiÌ·, ·Ú¿ ÙȘ ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ ÛÙȘ Ôԛ˜ ¤¯ÂÈÚԂ› ·ÊfiÙÔ˘ ¤Ï·‚ ÙÔ ¯Ú›ÛÌ·Ù˘ ˘Ô„‹ÊÈ·˜ ¯ÒÚ·˜.

Ÿˆ˜ ·Ú·ÙËÚ› Ô ¶·Ó·ÁÈÒ-Ù˘ ∆ۿΈӷ˜2, Ô ÚfiÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ÛÙÚ·ÙÔ‡ Î·È ÙÔ ÎÔ˘Ú‰ÈÎfi ·ÔÙ¤-ÏÂÛ·Ó ‚·ÛÈο ı¤Ì·Ù·-·ÁοıÈ·Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ηٿÛÙ·Û˘ ÛÙËÓ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÛÙ· ÔÔ›· Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹ ¤-‰ˆÛ ȉȷ›ÙÂÚË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÛÙËÓ ¤Î-ıÂÛ‹ Ù˘ ÙÔ 1998. ¶·Ú¿ Ù· ‚‹Ì·-

∂ÛˆÙÂÚÈΤ˜

Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜

ªÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ&∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ¶ÔÏÈÙÈ΋

ÙÔ˘ ∫ˆÓÛÙ·ÓÙ›ÓÔ˘ ¢È·Ì·ÓÙ›ÎÔ˘¶Ù˘¯ÈÔ‡¯Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ∆Ì‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ∂ÈÛÙ‹Ì˘ Î·È ¢ËÌfiÛÈ·˜ ¢ÈÔ›ÎËÛ˘

Η Tουρκία «ψάχνει» την Ευρώπη, αλλά αυτή κοιτάζει αλλού.

Page 13: European Expression - Issue 48

∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 11

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Ù· Ù· ÔÔ›· ¤ÁÈÓ·Ó ÚÔ˜ ÙȘ η-Ù¢ı‡ÓÛÂȘ Ô˘ ˘¤‰ÂÈÍÂ Ë ŒÓˆ-ÛË, Ù· ·ÔÙÂϤÛÌ·Ù· ‰ÂÓ ÎÚ›ÓÔ-ÓÙ·È ÈηÓÔÔÈËÙÈο.

∏ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ¤¯ÂÈ ÚԂ› –Û‡Ì-ʈӷ Ì ÙËÓ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ¤ÎıÂÛËÚÔfi‰Ô˘ Ô˘ ÂÎfiÓËÛÂ Ë ∂È-ÙÚÔ‹3- Û ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈΤ˜ ÌÂÙ·Ú-Ú˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ, ΢ڛˆ˜ ÙÔ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›Ô¤ÙÔ˜, Ì ÙËÓ ˘ÈÔı¤ÙËÛË ÙÚÈÒÓ ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ ·Î¤ÙˆÓ. øÛÙfi-ÛÔ, ÌÈÎÚ‹ ÚfiÔ‰Ô˜ ¤¯ÂÈ Û˘ÓÙÂÏÂ-ÛÙ› Û ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù· Ô˘ ¿ÙÔÓÙ·ÈÙˆÓ ·ÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ ‰ÈηȈ̿وÓ,fiˆ˜ Ù· ‚·Û·ÓÈÛÙ‹ÚÈ· ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·-ÙÔ˘Ì¤ÓˆÓ, ÔÈ Û˘Óı‹Î˜ ÎÚ¿ÙË-Û˘ ÛÙȘ Ê˘Ï·Î¤˜ Î·È Ë ÚÔÛÙ·-Û›· ÙˆÓ ÌÂÈÔÓÔًوÓ. ∞Ó·ÊÔÚ¿Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ÚÔ¿ÛÈÛË Ù˘ Â-Ï¢ıÂÚ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘, ·ÏÏ¿ ηÈÛÙÔ ı¤Ì· Ù˘ ‰È·ÊıÔÚ¿˜, fiÔ˘Ù· ̤ÙÚ· Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÏËÊı› ˆ˜Û‹ÌÂÚ· ÎÚ›ÓÔÓÙ·È ·Ó·Ú΋.Ÿˆ˜ ·Ú·ÙËÚ› Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹, ÔÈÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ, ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· ·Ú·-ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÙ·È Ë ÛËÌ·Û›· ÙÔ˘˜, ·ÓÔ›-ÁÔ˘Ó ÙÔ ‰ÚfiÌÔ ÁÈ· ÂÚ·ÈÙ¤Úˆ·ÏÏ·Á¤˜.

∏ ÚfiÔ‰Ô˜ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Ì‚¿ÛË Ù· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· Ù˘∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘ Â›Ó·È Â›Û˘ ÂÚÈÔ-ÚÈṲ̂ÓË. ∏ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›-˙ÂÈ ÔÏÏ¿ Î·È ÔÈΛϷ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈοÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ù·, ηıÒ˜ Î·È ·ÛÙ·-ı›˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈΤ˜ ‰Ô̤˜, Ô˘ ÂÈ-‰ÂÈÓÒıËÎ·Ó ·fi ÙȘ ‰‡Ô ÔÈÎÔÓÔ-ÌÈΤ˜ ÎÚ›ÛÂȘ ÙˆÓ ÂÙÒÓ 1999 ηÈ2001. À„ËÏfi˜ ÏËıˆÚÈÛÌfi˜,Ô˘ ÙÔ 2001 ·ÁÁ›˙ÂÈ ÙÔ 57%4,ÌÂÁ¿Ï· ÔÛÔÛÙ¿ ·ÓÂÚÁ›·˜, ¯·-ÌËÏfi Î·È Êı›ÓÔÓ Î·Ù¿ ÎÂÊ·Ï‹Ó∞∂¶, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ¤ÏÏÂÈ„Ë ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔ-ÓÔÌÈ΋˜ ÂÈı·Ú¯›·˜ Û˘Óı¤ÙÔ˘ÓÙËÓ Ì·ÎÚÔÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋ ÂÈÎfiÓ· Ù˘¯ÒÚ·˜. ∆Ô ·ÛÙ·ı¤˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfiÎ·È ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔÓ, ·ÏÏ¿Î·È Ù· ÁÚ·ÊÂÈÔÎÚ·ÙÈο ÂÌfi‰È·¤¯Ô˘Ó ˆ˜ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· Ó· ·Ú·-ÙËÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·ÓÂÍ‹ÁËÙ· ¯·ÌËÏ¿

–ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÁÂıÔ˜ Ù˘ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜-ÔÛÔÛÙ¿ Í¤ÓˆÓ ·Ì¤ÛˆÓ ÂÂÓ‰‡-ÛˆÓ5.

∏ ‰¤ÛÌË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ-ÎÒÓ Ì¤ÙÚˆÓ Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËΠÙÔηÏÔη›ÚÈ ÙÔ˘ 2002 ›¯Â ˆ˜ ·Ô-Ù¤ÏÂÛÌ· Ó· ‚ÂÏÙȈı› Ë ÂÈÎfiÓ·Ù˘ ¯ÒÚ·˜ Û ۯ¤ÛË Ì ÙÔ ·-ÚÂÏıfiÓ, ·Ó Î·È Ë ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈ΋ Ô-Ú›· ‚·Ú‡ÓÂÙ·È Ì ·‚‚·ÈfiÙËÙ·.¢È·ÎÚ›ÓÔÓÙ·È Ù· ÚÒÙ· ıÂÙÈο ·-ÔÙÂϤÛÌ·Ù· ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡-ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ ›Ù¢Í˘ Ì·ÎÚÔÔÈÎÔ-ÓÔÌÈ΋˜ ÛÙ·ıÂÚfiÙËÙ·˜, ÔÈ ÏË-ıˆÚÈÛÙÈΤ˜ ȤÛÂȘ ‰Â›¯ÓÔ˘Ó Ó·

ÌÂÈÒÓÔÓÙ·È, ÂÓÒ ÔÏfiÎÏËÚË Ë ÔÈ-ÎÔÓÔÌ›· ÚÔÛ·ı› Ó· ·Ó·Î¿Ì-„ÂÈ ·fi ÙȘ ‰‡Ô ·ÔÛÙ·ıÂÚÔÔÈ-ËÙÈΤ˜ ÎÚ›ÛÂȘ.

¶·ÚfiÏ· ·˘Ù¿, ‰È·ÈÛÙÒÓÂÙ·ÈfiÙÈ Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ‰ÂÓ ¤¯ÂÈ Î·Ù·Ê¤ÚÂÈÓ· ÂÈÙÂϤÛÂÈ ÚÔfi‰Ô˘˜ ÛÙËÓηÙ‡ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ ÂÁηı›‰Ú˘Û˘̛·˜ ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÙÈ΋˜ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜Ù˘ ·ÁÔÚ¿˜. ∏ ·ÛÙ¿ıÂÈ· Î·È Ë ¤Ï-ÏÂÈ„Ë ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈ΋˜ ÂÈı·Ú-¯›·˜ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó ÛËÌÂ›Ô ·Ó·ÊÔ-Ú¿˜ ÛÙËÓ ¤ÎıÂÛË Ù˘ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜.∞ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÔÈ ‰È·ÚıÚˆÙÈΤ˜ ÌÂÙ·Ú-Ú˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ Â›Ó·È ÂÚÈÔÚÈṲ̂Ó˘ÂÌ‚¤ÏÂÈ·˜ ηÈ, ηْ ¤ÎÙ·ÛË,ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÂÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ.∏ ·ÔÙ˘¯›·, ‹, ÔÚıfiÙÂÚ·, Ë ÌÂÚÈ-΋ ÂÈÙ˘¯›·, Â›Ó·È ‰˘Ó·Ùfi Ó· ÂÚ-

ÌËÓ¢ı› ·fi ÙËÓ ¤ÏÏÂÈ„Ë ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ΋˜ ÔÚÌ‹˜ ÙˆÓ ÚÔË-ÁÔ˘Ì¤ÓˆÓ ÂÙÒÓ. ∞ÚÈıÌËÙÈο ËÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ΋ ˘ÛÙ¤ÚËÛË ·Ô-‰ÂÈÎÓ‡ÂÙ·È Ì ̛· ·Ï‹ ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ÛÙÔ ‰ËÌfiÛÈÔ ¯Ú¤Ô˜, Ô˘ Ë ∂È-ÙÚÔ‹ ÂÎÙÈÌ¿ Ó· ÏËÛÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÙÔ102% ÙÔ˘ ∞∂¶ ÙÔ 2001, ηıÒ˜Î·È ÛÙÔ ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ¤ÏÏÂÈÌÌ·,fiÔ˘ ÙÔ ÔÛÔÛÙfi Â›Ó·È 28,7%ÙÔ˘ ∞∂¶! ∂ÈÚÔÛı¤Ùˆ˜, Ë ·Â-Ï¢ı¤ÚˆÛË ÎÚ›ÛÈÌˆÓ ÙÔ̤ˆÓ Ù˘ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜, fiˆ˜ ÔÈ ÙËÏÂÈÎÔÈ-ӈӛ˜ Î·È Ô ÙÔ̤·˜ Ù˘ ÂÓ¤ÚÁÂÈ-·˜, ÚÔ¯ˆÚ¿ ·ÚÁ¿6.

∆Ô ÎÚ›ÛÈÌÔ ÂÚÒÙËÌ· ÙÔ ÔԛԷӷ·ÙÂÈ Â›Ó·È ÁÈ·Ù› Ë ÚÔÂÓÙ·-Íȷ΋ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ‰ÂÓ›¯Â ˆ˜ ÙÒÚ· ÙÔ ÂȉȈÎfiÌÂÓÔ ·-ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ·.

∏ ·¿ÓÙËÛË ‰Â ÌÔÚ› Î·È ‰ÂÚ¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È ÌÔÓÔÛ‹Ì·ÓÙË. ∏«ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ΋ ·Ó¿ÚÎÂÈ·»ÔÊ›ÏÂÙ·È Î·Ù¿ ·ÚÈÔ ÏfiÁÔÛÙÔ˘˜ Êfi‚Ô˘˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÌ·ÏÈÎԇηÙÂÛÙË̤ÓÔ˘ fiÙÈ ı· ¯¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔÓ¤ÏÂÁ¯Ô Ù˘ ÎÚ·ÙÈ΋˜ Ì˯·Ó‹˜,·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÈÚÚÔ‹ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙËÓÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋ ˙ˆ‹ Ù˘ ¯ÒÚ·˜7.÷ڷÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfi ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ·Ù˘ ·Û˘Ó¤ÂÈ·˜ ÏfiÁˆÓ Î·È ¤Ú-ÁˆÓ, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÌÂÙÚÈÔ·ıÔ‡˜ ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ‡ıÌÈÛ˘ ·ÔÙÂÏ› ÙÔ«∂ıÓÈÎfi ¶ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ˘È-Ôı¤ÙËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡ ÎÂÎÙË-̤ÓÔ˘»8.

ŒÓ·˜ ÂÈϤÔÓ ·Ú¿ÁÔÓÙ·˜Ô˘ Èı·ÓÒ˜ Ó· ÂÍËÁ› ÙËÓ ·ÓÂ-·Ú΋ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ΋ ‰Ú¿ÛËÎ·È Ù· ÂÚÈÔÚÈṲ̂ӷ ·ÔÙÂϤ-ÛÌ·Ù· ·˘Ù‹˜, ΢ڛˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔ-ÓÔÌ›·, Â›Ó·È Ë «‰ÈÂıÓ‹˜ ˘ÂÚ-Â-¤ÎÙ·ÛË» (“overstretching”)9. ∆·Û˘ÛÛˆÚÂ˘Ì¤Ó· ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο ÚÔ-‚Ï‹Ì·Ù· Ù˘ Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜, Û‡ÌʈӷÌ ÙË ıˆڛ· ·˘Ù‹, ÔÊ›ÏÔÓÙ·ÈÛÙȘ ‰ÈÔÁΈ̤Ó˜ ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈΤ˜‰·¿Ó˜, Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ˆ˜ ÛÙfi¯ÔÙËÓ ·‡ÍËÛË Ù˘ ‰ÈÂıÓÔ‡˜ ÂÈÚ-

❝√È ÚÔÛ‰Ô˘ ÌÂ-Ù¿ ÙËÓ ÂÎÏÔÁ‹∂ÚÓÙÔÁ¿Ó – °ÎÈ-Ô‡Ï ÛÙÔ ÙÈÌfiÓÈ Ù˘Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜ ·˘Í¿ÓÔ-ÓÙ·È, ¯ˆÚ›˜ ˆÛÙfi-ÛÔ Ó· ‰È·Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È·Ó Â›Ó·È ÙÂÏÈο Â-ÊÈÎÙ‹ Ë ÂÈÙ¿¯˘Ó-ÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ı-̛ۈÓ.

Page 14: European Expression - Issue 48

12 ∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÚÔ‹˜ Ù˘ ¯ÒÚ·˜. √È Î·Î¤˜ Ì·-ÎÚÔÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈΤ˜ ÂȉfiÛÂȘ Ù˘∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Î·È Ë ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙË Â›‰Ú·-ÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂˆÓ ÛÙË ÁÂ-ÓÈÎfiÙÂÚË ÂÈÎfiÓ· Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·˜ ›Ûˆ˜ ÂÍËÁÂ›Ù·È Î·È ·-fi ÙÔ Ê·ÈÓfiÌÂÓÔ Ù˘ «˘ÂÚ-¤-ÎÙ·Û˘».

ŒÓ· ·ÎfiÌ· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÂÚÒÙË-Ì· Â›Ó·È Â¿Ó ÔÈ ‰Ô̤˜ ÙÔ˘ ÎÚ·ÙÈ-ÎÔ‡ Ì˯·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡ ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ·-ÓÙ·ÔÎÚÈıÔ‡Ó ÛÙȘ ··ÈÙ‹ÛÂȘÙ˘ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ‡ıÌÈÛ˘. ◊ ·Ó ¤¯Ô˘ÓÙË ‚Ô‡ÏËÛË Ó· ÙÔ Î¿ÓÔ˘Ó, fiÙ·Ó¤ÓÓÔȘ fiˆ˜ ÂıÓÈ΋ ΢ÚÈ·Ú¯›·Î·È ·ÓÂÍ·ÚÙËÛ›· ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÔ˘Ó ·-Ó›Û¯˘Ú˜10. √È ÛÙfi¯ÔÈ ÙˆÓ ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ˘ı̛ۈÓ, ‹ÙÔÈ Ë ·Ú·›ÙËÛË·fi ÙÔ ÎÚ·ÙÈÎÈÛÙÈÎfi ÚfiÙ˘Ô ÌÂÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Â›Ó·È ¿ÚÚËÎÙ· Û˘Ó‰Â‰Â-̤ÓË Ë ÎÂÌ·ÏÈ΋ ·Ú¿‰ÔÛË Î·È Ë·Ô‰˘Ó¿ÌˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÈ̤ÚÔ˘˜ÛÙÔȯ›ˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ˘Ú‹Ó· ÙÔ˘ ¤-ıÓÔ˘˜-ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜, Û˘ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Ó ·ÂÈ-Ï‹ ÁÈ· ÙË Û˘ÓÔ¯‹, ·ÎfiÌ· Î·È ÙËÓÂÈ‚›ˆÛË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜. ∏ ¤ÏÏÂÈ-„Ë ·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔȯ˘ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌÈÛÙÈ-΋˜ ÂÌÂÈÚ›·˜ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓ ‰Ë-

ÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ› ·ÌÊÈ‚Ôϛ˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤-΂·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÂÁ¯ÂÈÚ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜.

∆¤ÏÔ˜, ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÌÂÚ›‰ÈÔ Â˘-ı‡Ó˘ ʤÚÂÈ Î·È Ë ı¤ÛË ÙˆÓ ËÁÂ-ÙÈÎÒÓ Âϛ٠Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ηıÒ˜·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ˆ˜ Â-›Ù¢ÁÌ· Ù˘ Â͈ÙÂÚÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ-΋˜ Ù˘ ¯ÒÚ·˜, ·ÔÛ˘Ó‰¤ÔÓÙ·˜ÙÔÓ ÛÙfi¯Ô Ù˘ Ï‹ÚÔ˘˜ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘·fi ÙÔ Ì¤ÛÔ, ÙËÓ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈ΋ ηÈÛ ‚¿ıÔ˜ ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ‡ıÌÈÛË ÙˆÓ Ô-ÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ ‰ÔÌÒÓÙ˘. √È ÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ Âϛ٠Ù˘ Á›ÙÔ-ÓÔ˜ ‰ÂÓ Ù·˘Ù›˙ÔÓÙ·È Ì ÙȘ ÌÂ-Ù·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ Î·È ·˘Ùfi ¤¯ÂÈ ˆ˜ ·-ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ÔÔÈ·‰‹ÔÙ ÌÂÙ·Ú-Ú˘ıÌÈÛÙÈο ̤ÙÚ· Ó· ¤ÊÙÔ˘ÓÛÙÔ ÎÂÓfi11.

√È ÚÔÛ‰Ô˘ ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ ÂÎÏÔ-Á‹ ∂ÚÓÙÔÁ¿Ó – °ÎÈÔ‡Ï ÛÙÔ ÙÈÌfiÓÈÙ˘ Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜ ·˘Í¿ÓÔÓÙ·È, ¯ˆÚ›˜ˆÛÙfiÛÔ Ó· ‰È·Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È ·Ó ›ӷÈÙÂÏÈο ÂÊÈÎÙ‹ Ë ÂÈÙ¿¯˘ÓÛË ÙˆÓÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ı̛ۈÓ. À¿Ú¯ÂÈ Ì›·ÌÂÁ¿ÏË ·ÓٛʷÛË Â‰Ò: ÚÔÛ‰Ô-˘ ÁÈ· ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ ÂÂÓ-‰‡ÔÓÙ·È Û ¤Ó· ÈÛÏ·ÌÈÎfi ΛÓËÌ·Ô˘ ·fi ÙË Ê‡ÛË ÙÔ˘ ‰Â ÚÔ-

ÛʤÚÂÙ·È ÁÈ· ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ ‰˘-ÙÈÎÔ‡ Ù‡Ô˘! ∞ÏÏ¿ ›Ûˆ˜ Ë È‰ÈÔ-ÌÔÚÊ›· ÙÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈÎÔ‡ ÈÛÏ·ÌÈ-ÛÌÔ‡ Ó· ÂÈÙÚ¤„ÂÈ ÙȘ ·Ó·Áη›Â˜ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔÁ¤˜ ÒÛÙÂ Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· Ó·ÂÈÙ‡¯ÂÈ ÙÔÓ ÛÙfi¯Ô Ù˘ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘,ÂÎÏËÚÒÓÔÓÙ·˜ Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· Ù˘∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘. ∞fi ÙËÓ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋‚Ô‡ÏËÛË Î·È ÙËÓ ÔÚ›· ÙˆÓ ·Ï-Ï·ÁÒÓ ı· ÎÚÈı› ÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚ÎfiÛÙÔ›¯ËÌ· Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ÙÔÓ ¢Â-Τ̂ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 2004.

1. πˆ·ÎÂÈÌ›‰Ë˜, ¶. ∫., «∆Ô˘ÚΛ·: Ì›-

˙ÔÓ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË», √ÈÎÔ-

ÓÔÌÈÎfi˜ ∆·¯˘‰ÚfiÌÔ˜, 19 √ÎÙˆ‚Ú›Ô˘

2002.

2. Panayotis J. Tsakonas, « Turkey’s

Post Helsinki Turbulence: Implications

for Greece and the Cyprus Issue»,

Turkish Studies, ∆fiÌÔ˜ 2, ∆‡¯Ô˜ 2,

ºıÈÓfiˆÚÔ 2001.

3. European Commission, Regular

Report on Turkey’s Progress towards

Accession, 2002, ÛÂÏ. 44 Î. ÂÍ.

4. European Commission, Ô..

5. Turkey’s performance in Attracting

Foreign Direct Investment, European

Network of Economic Policy Research

Institutes, Working Paper No. 8,

November 2001.

6. µÏ¤Â OECD, Economic Survey of

Turkey, 2002 ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È European

Commission, Ô.., ÛÂÏ. 152

7. ∂›Ó·È ÁÓˆÛÙfi˜ Ô ÚfiÏÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ó-

‰¤ÛÌÔ˘ ∞ÏÏËÏÔ‚ÔËı›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ™ÙÚ·ÙÔ‡

(√À§∫) ÛÙËÓ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·.

8. «Great ideas, on paper»,

Economist, 6/10/2001

9. ¶. ∫·˙¿ÎÔ˜, ÂÈÛ‹ÁËÛË ÛÂ Û˘Ó¤-

‰ÚÈÔ Ì ı¤Ì· «∆Ô ª¤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ-

˘ Î·È Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·» Ô˘ ‰ÈÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛ ÙÔ

∂∫∂ª.

10. µÏ¤Â ÙȘ ‰ËÏÒÛÂȘ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙË-

ÁÔ‡ ¡·¯›Ù ™ÂÓÔÁÔ‡Ï, ÂÈÎÂÊ·Ï‹˜ ÙˆÓ

ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈÎÒÓ Û¯ÔÏÒÓ ÙˆÓ ∆Ô˘ÚÎÈÎÒÓ

ÂÓfiÏˆÓ ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂˆÓ (Reuters,

2/10/2000)

11. µÏ¤Â Û˘Ó¤ÓÙ¢ÍË ÙÔ˘ ∫ÂÌ¿Ï

¡Ù·Ú‚›˜, “Winning Turkey’s Trust”,

Financial Times, 14/5/2001.

Οι στρατιωτικές δαπάνες της Τουρκίας επιτείνουν τα οικονοµικά προβλήµατα.

Page 15: European Expression - Issue 48

∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 13

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

∆Ô ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi Úfi‚ÏËÌ·, ÛÂfiϘ ÙÔ˘ ÙȘ Ê¿ÛÂȘ, ›¯Â ·Ô-ÙÂϤÛÂÈ ·ÓÙÈΛÌÂÓÔ ÂÂÍÂÚÁ·-Û›·˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÓ ÙˆÓ ∏ӈ̤-ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ. ∆· ·ÔÙÂϤÛÌ·Ù·Ù˘ ÔÓÔÌ·˙fiÌÂÓ˘ «‰ÈÂıÓÔÔ›-ËÛ˘» ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ Â›Ó·È Ï›-ÁÔ ‹ Ôχ ÁÓˆÛÙ¿, ‰Â‰Ô̤ÓË˜Î·È Ù˘ ¯ÚÔÓ›˙Ô˘Û·˜, Ù· ÙÂÏ¢-Ù·›· 30, ÂÚ›Ô˘, ¯ÚfiÓÈ·, ηٿ-ÛÙ·Û˘ ÛÙÔ ‚fiÚÂÈÔ ÙÌ‹Ì· ÙÔ˘ÓËÛÈÔ‡.

∞ÎfiÌ·, fï˜ Î·È Ì ÙËÓ ÈÔ·˘ÛÙËÚ‹ ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛË Ù˘ Ô-Ú›·˜ ÙÔ˘∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÂÓÒÈÔÓÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ, ·ÎfiÌ·ÎÈ ·Ó ‰ÂÓ ·Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›ÛıËÎ·Ó Ô˘-‰¤ÔÙ ٷ ÁÂÁÔÓfiÙ· ÙÔ˘ 1974ˆ˜ ›ıÂÛË, ·ÎfiÌ· ÎÈ ·Ó Ë Â›-Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ·Ú·-¤ÌÂÙ·È Î·È ÂȉÈÒÎÂÙ·È Ì¤ÛˆÙÔ˘ ÂÚ›ÊËÌÔ˘ «‰È·-ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡‰È·ÏfiÁÔ˘», Ô˘‰Â›˜ ‰‡Ó·Ù·È Ó··ÌÊÈÛ‚ËÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ‡·ÚÍË ÔÚÈ-ÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ıÂÙÈÎÒÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÂÛÌ¿-ÙˆÓ.

∏ ÌË ·Ó·ÁÓÒÚÈÛË ÙÔ˘ ·˘ÙÔ-ÙÈÙÏÔÊÔÚÔ‡ÌÂÓÔ˘ ˆ˜ «∆Ô˘ÚÎÈ-

΋ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›· Ù˘ µÔÚ›·˜∫‡ÚÔ˘» „¢‰ÔÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜, Ë ı¤-ÛË ÂÚ› ‰È·ÙËÚ‹Ûˆ˜ ÂÓfi˜ Ìfi-ÓÔ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜, Ì ‰ÈÂıÓ‹ ÓÔÌÈ΋ÚÔÛˆÈÎfiÙËÙ·, ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡ÌÂ-ÓÔ˘ ·fi ‰‡Ô ÈÛfiÙÈ̘ ÎÔÈÓfiÙË-Ù˜, ·ÔÎÏÂÈÔ̤Ó˘ Ù˘ ·fi-Û¯ÈÛ˘ ‹ ÂÓۈ̿وÛ˘ ÙÌ‹Ì·-ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÓËÛÈÔ‡ Û ÙÚ›ÙÔ ÎÚ¿-ÙÔ˜, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜ fiÙÈÙÔ fiÏÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ, Â-› ÙfiÛÔ ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ¯ÚÔÓÈÎfi ‰È¿-ÛÙËÌ·, ÛÙÔ ÚÔÛ΋ÓÈÔ, ¤ÛÙˆÎ·È Û ηٿÛÙ·ÛË ÛÙ¿ÛÈÌË, ÂÓÒ˘fi ¿ÏϘ Û˘Óı‹Î˜ ı· ·ÔÙÂ-ÏÔ‡Û ·Ï¿ Î·È ÌfiÓÔ ÁÂÁÔÓfi˜˘·ÁfiÌÂÓÔ ÛÙÔÓ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈÎfiÎÏ¿‰Ô Ù˘ πÛÙÔÚ›·˜, ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó›Ûˆ˜ ÙȘ ÌÔÓ·‰ÈΤ˜ «ÊˆÙÂÈÓ¤˜»ÂÍ·ÈÚ¤ÛÂȘ, Ù· ÌÔÓ·‰Èο ıÂÙÈοÛËÌ›· Ô˘ ·ÂÎfiÌÈÛÂ Ë ÂÏÏË-ÓÈ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿ › ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔÓ ·ÁÎfi-ÛÌÈÔ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi Î·È ÂȉÈÎfiÙÂÚ··fi ÙÔ ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ∞ÛÊ·Ï›·˜.

∆ËÓ ·Ú·ÙÂٷ̤ÓË ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô·‰Ú¿ÓÂÈ·˜ ‰È·‰¤¯ıËÎÂ, ÚÔ-ÛÊ¿Ùˆ˜, Ë Â·Ó¤Ó·ÚÍË ÙˆÓ

∏ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘

ÙÔ˘ µ·Û›ÏË ¶. ∆˙‚ÂϤÎÔ˘¶Ù˘¯ÈÔ‡¯Ô˘ ¡ÔÌÈ΋˜, ÌÂÙ·Ù˘¯È·ÎÔ‡ ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹ D.E.A. Droit International Public

Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ÛÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÓˆÛˈ˜ ÌÔ¯Ïfi˜ Â›Ï˘Û˘

ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡

∏ ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË Ù˘ ‰ÈÂıÓÔ‡˜ ÂÈ-Ú‹Ó˘ Î·È ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜ Û ·-ÁÎfiÛÌÈÔ Â›Â‰Ô ¤¯ÂÈ «·Ó·-

ÙÂı›» ÛÙÔÓ √ÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌfi ∏Óˆ-Ì¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ (√.∏.∂.). µ¤-

‚·È·, Ë Ú·ÎÙÈ΋ ÙÔ˘ ·ÁÎfi-ÛÌÈÔ˘ ÔÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È Ë ·Ô-ÙÂÏÂÛÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Ù˘ ‰Ú¿Û˘ÙÔ˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ηْ ·ӿÏË„Ë ·-

ÔÙÂϤÛÂÈ ·ÓÙÈΛÌÂÓÔ ÚÔ-‚ÏËÌ·ÙÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È ÂÓÙÔÓfiÙ·-Ù˘ ÎÚÈÙÈ΋˜. √È ÂÁÁÂÓ›˜ ·-

‰˘Ó·Ì›Â˜ ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Â-ÛÙÈ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È, ÌÂٷ͇ ¿ÏψÓ,

Î·È ÛÙÔ Â›Â‰Ô ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘-Ï›Ô˘ ∞ÛÊ·Ï›·˜, ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ÔÚÁ¿ÓÔ˘, ηı’ ‡ÏË (Û˘Ó)·Ú-Ìfi‰ÈÔ˘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛË ‰ÈÂ-

ıÓÒÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ Î·È ÙË ‰È·Ù‹-ÚËÛË Ù˘ ÂÈÚ‹Ó˘, ÛÙ· Ï·›-

ÛÈ· ÙÔ˘ ÔÔ›Ô˘, ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó·ÚԂϤÂÙ·È ¤ÏÂÁ¯Ô˜ Ù˘ ÓÔ-

ÌÈÌfiÙËÙ·˜ ÙˆÓ Ú¿ÍÂˆÓ Ô˘ÂΉ›‰ÂÈ, Ù· ¤ÓÙ ÌfiÓÈÌ· ̤-ÏË ÙÔ˘ ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ‰Èη›ˆÌ·

·ÚÓËÛÈ΢ڛ·˜ (veto).

Page 16: European Expression - Issue 48

‰È·ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÒÓ ‰ÈÌÂÚÒÓ Â·ÊÒÓ,Ë ˘Ô‚ÔÏ‹ ‰È·‰Ô¯ÈÎÒÓ Û¯Â‰›ˆÓÂ›Ï˘Û˘ ÙÔ˘ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹-Ì·ÙÔ˜ ·fi ÙÔ °ÂÓÈÎfi °Ú·ÌÌ·Ù¤·ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ Î·È Ë ¤-ÓÙÔÓË ‰Èψ̷ÙÈ΋ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË Â͇ÚÂÛ˘ÎÔÈÓÔ‡ ÂÚ›ÛÌ·ÙÔ˜ › ÙˆÓ ÚÔ-ÙÂÈÓfiÌÂÓˆÓ Û¯Â‰›ˆÓ. ∏ Ó¤· ·˘Ù‹ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô˜ «¤ÓÙÔÓ˘ ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔ-Ô›ËÛ˘», Ô˘ ʤÚÂÈ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈ-ÛÙÈο ÁÓˆÚ›ÛÌ·Ù· ÙfiÛÔ ‰È·ÊÔ-ÚÂÙÈο ·fi ·˘Ù¿ Ù˘ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂ-Ó˘ ÂÚÈfi‰Ô˘ -ÛÙ·ÛÈÌfiÙËÙ·˜ ÙÔ˘∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡-, ÙÂÏÔ‡Û· ÂÓ ÂÍÂÏ›-ÍÂÈ, ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ› ÛÎÂÙÈÎÈÛÌfi ·Ï-Ï¿ Î·È ÂÏ›‰Â˜ ˆ˜ ÚÔ˜ ÙÔ ·Ô-Ù¤ÏÂÛÌ·.

∞Ó·ÌÊÈÛ‚‹ÙËÙ·, Ù· ·›ÙÈ· «·-Ó·ı¤ÚÌ·ÓÛ˘» ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡Î·È ÎÔڇʈÛ˘ ÙˆÓ Û¯ÂÙÈÎÒÓÚÔÛ·ıÂÈÒÓ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·Ó·-˙ËÙËıÔ‡Ó ¤Íˆ ·fi ÙÔÓ √.∏.∂.ηÈ, ÈÔ Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈ̤ӷ, ÛÙË ‰È·‰È-ηۛ· ‰È‡ڢÓÛ˘ Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚-΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘ (∂.∂.) Î·È ÛÙËÓ ÚÔ-ÔÙÈ΋ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Û ·˘Ù‹ Ù˘ ∫‡-ÚÔ˘ ηÈ, ÌÂÙ·ÁÂÓ¤ÛÙÂÚ·, ÂÓ‰Â-¯Ô̤ӈ˜ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜. √˘ÛÈ·-ÛÙÈο, Ë ∂.∂., Ë È‰ÈfiÙ˘Ë ·˘Ù‹ ¤-ÓˆÛË ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ, Ë ‰ÈÂıÓ‹˜ ·˘Ù‹,¢ÚÈÛÎfiÌÂÓË Û ÂÍÂÏÈÎÙÈ΋ ‰È·‰È-ηۛ·, ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË, Û˘ÓÈÛÙ¿ ÙÔÓ·Ú¿ÁÔÓÙ· Ô˘ ‰›ÓÂÈ ÙÔ ¤Ó·˘ÛÌ·Î·È ·ÔÙÂÏ› ÙÔ ÂÊ·ÏÙ‹ÚÈÔ, ÙÔÓÎÈÓËÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÌÔ¯Ïfi ÁÈ· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈΤ˜Î·È ‰Ú·ÛÙÈΤ˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ.

H ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ‹‰Ë ·fi ÙÔ 1987,›¯Â ˘Ô‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ·›ÙËÛË ÁÈ· ¤ÓÙ·-ÍË ÛÙÔ ÙfiÙÂ Â˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ÔÈÎÔ‰fi-ÌËÌ·. ∏ ·ÚÓËÙÈ΋ ÁÓˆÌÔ‰fiÙËÛËÙ˘ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ Î·È Ë ·ÎfiÏÔ˘ıË ·-fiÊ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ ÀÔ˘Ú-ÁÒÓ, ÙÔÓ ¢ÂΤ̂ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 1989, ·-¤ÎÏÂÈÛ·Ó ÙËÓ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ¤ÓÙ·-͢ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ÂÓÒ ·ÎÔÏÔ‡-ıËÛÂ Ë ÂÁηı›‰Ú˘ÛË Ù˘ ∆Âψ-ÓÂȷ΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘ (ηÙfiÈÓ Ù˘¿ÚÛ˘ ÙÔ˘ ÂÏÏËÓÈÎÔ‡ ‚¤ÙÔ, ÙÔÓ

ª¿ÚÙÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 1995), Ë ÔÔ›· Ù¤ıË-Π۠ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ·fi ÙËÓ 1Ë π·-ÓÔ˘·Ú›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ 1996.

∞ÓÙ›ÛÙÔȯ·, ÔÈ Û¯¤ÛÂȘ Ù˘ ∫˘-Úȷ΋˜ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ Ì ÙȘ ∂˘-Úˆ·˚Τ˜ ∫ÔÈÓfiÙËÙ˜ ¯ÚÔÓÔÏÔ-ÁÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ 1972, fiÙ·Ó ˘Â-ÁÚ¿ÊË Ë ™˘Ìʈӛ· ™‡Ó‰ÂÛ˘ ÌÂÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ √ÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋ ∫ÔÈ-ÓfiÙËÙ· (∂.√.∫.). ¶·Ú¿ ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿-ÛÙ·ÛË Ô˘ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ‹ıËΠÛÙËÓ‹ÛÔ ÙÔ 1974, ÔÈ Û¯¤ÛÂȘ ÙÔ˘ ΢-ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Ì ÙȘ ∂˘Úˆ-·˚Τ˜ ∫ÔÈÓfiÙËÙ˜ ‰È·ÙËÚ‹ıË-ηÓ, ·ÔÏ‹ÁÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ˘ÔÁÚ·-Ê‹ Ù˘ Û˘Ìʈӛ·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ∆Âψ-ÓÂȷ΋ ŒÓˆÛË, ÙÔ 1987.

∆ÔÓ πÔ‡ÏÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 1990, ηÙfiÈÓÙ˘ Ï‹Í˘ ÙÔ˘ æ˘¯ÚÔ‡ ¶ÔϤÌÔ˘,Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜ ˘¤‚·Ï ·›ÙËÛË ¤ÓÙ·-͢ Î·È ÙÚ›· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚ· (!),ÙÔÓ πÔ‡ÓÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 1993, Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹,Ì ÙË ÁÓˆÌÔ‰fiÙËÛ‹ Ù˘, ÂÂÛ‹-Ì·Ó fiÙÈ, «·Ú¿ ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ٷ˘ÙfiÙËÙ·… Î·È ÚÔÛ·Ó·ÙÔÏÈ-ÛÌfi Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘», ı· ¤Ú ӷ‰È·ÛÊ·ÏÈÛıÔ‡Ó ÔÈ ÚÔÔÙÈΤ˜ÁÈ· ‰È¢ı¤ÙËÛË ÙÔ˘ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜, Û˘Û¯ÂÙ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜,ηْ ·˘ÙfiÓ ÙÔÓ ÙÚfiÔ ÙËÓ «Â˘Úˆ-·˚΋ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋» ÙÔ˘ ΢ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Ì ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ-‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁËı›·fi Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ ÂÂÌ‚¿Ûˆ˜,ÙÔ 1974. ∆Ô ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ÀÔ˘Ú-ÁÒÓ ˘ÈÔı¤ÙËÛ ÙȘ ÂÈÛËÁ‹ÛÂȘÙ˘ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜, ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›-ˆÓ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚·ÓfiÙ·Ó Ë Â·ÓÂͤ-Ù·ÛË Ù˘ ·›ÙËÛ˘ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Ù˘∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÙÔ 1995 Î·È fiÚÈÛ «¶·-Ú·ÙËÚËÙ‹» › ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈ-ÎÒÓ Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏÈÒÓ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛËÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Ó·ÙÂÏ› ÂÓ‹ÌÂÚÔ Â› Ù˘ Û¯ÂÙÈ΋˜‰È·‰Èηۛ·˜ Î·È ÙˆÓ ·ÔÙÂÏÂ-ÛÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ù˘. ø˜ Ì›· ÚÒÙË ÌÂÙ·-ΛÓËÛË Ù˘ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ ·fi ÙËÓ·Ú¯È΋ Ù˘ ÙÔÔı¤ÙËÛË, ı· ÌÔ-ÚÔ‡Û ӷ ıˆÚËı› Ë ı¤ÛË Ô˘

ÂͤÊÚ·ÛÂ, ÛÙȘ ·Ú¯¤˜ ÙÔ˘ 1995,Û‡Ìʈӷ Ì ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ı· ·ÓÂ-ͤٷ˙ ÙÔ ˙‹ÙËÌ· Û ÂÚ›ÙˆÛËÌË ÙÂÏÂÛÊÔÚ‹Ûˆ˜ ÙˆÓ Â˘ÚÈ-ÛÎÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÂÓ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂÈ ‰È·ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈ-ÎÒÓ Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏÈÒÓ.

™ËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi˜, ÚfiÏÔ˜, ‚¤‚·È·, ·-Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÙ·È Î·È ÛÙȘ ·‰È¿ÏÂÈ-Ù˜ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂȘ ·fi ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋˜ ∫˘‚ÂÚÓ‹Ûˆ˜, Û ‰È·-‰Ô¯Èο ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈ· ÀÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ Î·È∂˘Úˆ·˚ο ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈ·… ∂› ÂÏ-ÏËÓÈ΋˜ ÚÔ‰ڛ·˜, ÙÔÓ πÔ‡ÓÈÔÙÔ˘ 1994, (‰Â‰Ô̤Ó˘ Ù˘ ·‰È·Ï-Ï·Í›·˜ Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘Ú-ÎÔ΢Úȷ΋˜ ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ Û ›Â-‰Ô ÚÔÛ·ıÂÈÒÓ Â͇ÚÂÛ˘ χ-Û˘ › ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡), ÛÙ· ™˘-ÌÂÚ¿ÛÌ·Ù· ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘, ‰È·Ù˘ÒıËÎÂ Ë ‰¤-ÛÌ¢ÛË fiÙÈ Ë ∂.∂. ı· Û˘ÌÂÚÈÂ-Ï¿Ì‚·Ó ÙËÓ ∫‡ÚÔ ÛÙÔ ÂfiÌÂÓÔÛÙ¿‰ÈÔ ‰È‡ڢÓÛ˘.

ªÂ ÙËÓ ·fiÊ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘, ÛÙȘ 6ª·ÚÙ›Ô˘ 1995, ÙÔ ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔÀÔ˘ÚÁÒÓ, ¤¯ÔÓÙ·˜ ÂÍÂÙ¿ÛÂÈ Î·ÈÙËÓ ¤ÎıÂÛË ÙÔ˘ «¶·Ú·ÙËÚËÙ‹»Ô˘ ›¯Â ÙÔÔıÂÙËı› ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·-Ú·ÎÔÏÔ‡ıËÛË ÙˆÓ ÂÍÂϛ͈ÓÛÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· Â͇ÚÂÛ˘ χ-Û˘ › ÙÔ˘ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·-ÙÔ˜, Ì ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ÂÈÛËÌ·›ÓÔ-ÓÙ·Ó Ë ¤ÏÏÂÈ„Ë ‚Ô‡ÏËÛ˘ Û˘ÓÂÚ-Á·Û›·˜ ·fi ÙËÓ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋-ÙÔ˘Ú-ÎÔ΢Úȷ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿, fiÚÈÛ fiÙÈ ÔȉȷڷÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂȘ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ ı·¿Ú¯È˙·Ó ÌÂÙ¿ ÙË Ï‹ÍË Ù˘ ¢È·Î˘-‚ÂÚÓËÙÈ΋˜ ¢È¿Û΄˘.

™ÙȘ 16 πÔ˘Ï›Ô˘ 1997, Ë ∂˘Úˆ-·˚΋ ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹ Âͤ‰ˆÛ ÙËÓ«∞Ù˙¤ÓÙ· 2000», fiÔ˘, ÂȉÈÎfiÙÂ-Ú· › Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘, ÂÂÛ‹Ì·ÓÂfiÙÈ Ë ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ¤ÓÙ·Í‹˜ Ù˘ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂. Û˘ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Û ΛÓËÙÚÔÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜, ÙÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ fiÙÈ ÛÂÂÚ›ÙˆÛË Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ÂÈÙ˘Á¯¿ÓÔ-ÓÙ·Ó ÚfiÔ‰Ô˜ ÛÙË ‰È·‰Èηۛ· Â-›Ï˘Û˘ ÙÔ˘ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹-

14 ∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Page 17: European Expression - Issue 48

∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 15

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÚÈÓ ÙËÓ ¤Ó·ÚÍË ÙˆÓ ÂÓÙ·-ÍÈ·ÎÒÓ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛˆÓ, ·˘-Ù¤˜ ı· ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó ÌfiÓÔ ÙËÓ ∫˘-Úȷ΋ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·. √È ÂÓÙ·ÍÈ·-Τ˜ ‰È·‰Èηۛ˜ ÍÂΛÓËÛ·Ó ·fiÙÔ ¡Ô¤Ì‚ÚÈÔ ÙÔ˘ 1998, Ì ·fi-Ê·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ °ÂÓÈÎÒÓÀÔı¤ÛÂˆÓ Ù˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘.

∆Ô ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfiÙÂÚÔ, fï˜, ‚‹-Ì· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÓÙ·Íȷ΋ ÔÚ›· Ù˘∫‡ÚÔ˘, ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û ӷ ˘Ô-ÛÙËÚȯı› fiÙÈ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËÎÂÌ ÙȘ ı¤ÛÂȘ Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËηÓÛÙÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ÙÔ˘∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ (10 – 11 ¢ÂÎÂÌ‚Ú›Ô˘1999).

ªÂ ÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ 9 ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËÎÂ, ÛÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Á›-ÓÂÙ·È ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙÔ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎfiÚfi‚ÏËÌ· ηÈ, ÂȉÈÎfiÙÂÚ·, ÛÙˉ‡ÙÂÚË ·Ú¿ÁÚ·ÊÔ ·˘ÙÔ‡, ·Ó·-ʤÚÂÙ·È Ì ÚËÙfi Î·È Û·Ê‹ ÙÚfiÔfiÙÈ «…Â¿Ó Ì¤¯ÚÈ ÙËÓ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹Úˆ-ÛË ÙˆÓ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂˆÓ ÚÔ-Û¯ÒÚËÛ˘ ‰ÂÓ ¤¯ÂÈ ÂÈÙ¢¯ı›χÛË (ÛÙÔ ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi), Ë ·fiÊ·ÛËÙÔ˘ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ fiÛÔÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙËÓÚÔÛ¯ÒÚËÛË (Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘) ı·ÏËÊı›, ¯ˆÚ›˜ ÙÔ ·ÓˆÙ¤Úˆ Ó· ·-ÔÙÂÏ› ÚÔ¸fiıÂÛË…»1. ∫·Ù’·˘ÙfiÓ ÙÔÓ ÙÚfiÔ ·ÔÛ˘Ó‰¤ÂÙ·ÈË ÂÓÙ·Íȷ΋ ÔÚ›· Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘·fi ÙËÓ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓË Â›Ï˘ÛËÙÔ˘ ¯ÚÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙÔ˜, ‰˘ÛÂ›Ï˘ÙÔ˘ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Ô˘ Ì·ÛÙ›˙ÂÈ Â‰ÒÎ·È 30, ÂÚ›Ô˘, ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÙÔ ÓËÛ›.ŸÛÔ ÎÈ ·Ó ÚÔ‚ϋıË, ÌÂÙ’ ÂÌÌÔ-Ó‹˜, ·fi ÙËÓ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ÙÔÂȯ›ÚËÌ· ÂÚ› ÌË ‰ÂÛÌ¢ÙÈÎfi-ÙËÙ·˜ Ù˘ ‰È¿Ù·Í˘ ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘, Ë‰È·Ù˘ˆı›۷ ÛÙÔ Î›ÌÂÓÔ ÙÔ˘∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ ı¤ÛË ÂÚ› ·ÂÌÏÔ΋˜Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ÔÚ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ΢-ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ ·fi ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘-ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ÂȂ‚·ÈÒıËΠηْ ·ӿÏË„ËÎ·È ·fi ‰È¿ÊÔÚ˜ ËÁ¤˜ ÙÔ˘ ¢-Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜.

∏ ÚÔÛÊ¿Ùˆ˜ ·ÔÊ·ÛÈÛı›۷·fi ÙÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔÙ˘ ∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘ (¢ÂΤ̂ÚÈÔ˜2002) ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓÂ˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ·, ·ÓÂÍ·Ú-ًو˜ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓ˘ Â›Ï˘Û˘ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, ¤¯ÂÈ ÙȘ Ú›˙˜ Ù˘ÛÙËÓ ·fiÊ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ¿ÚıÚÔ˘ 9 ÙÔ˘ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËΠÛÙÔ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ÙÔ˘∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ Î·È, fiˆ˜ Â›Ó·È ·˘ÙÔÓfiË-ÙÔ, ÚÔÛʤÚÂÈ ÔÏÏ·Ï¿ ÔʤÏËÛÙÔ Î˘ÚÈ·Îfi ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô,Ì ‰È·ÛÊ·ÏÈṲ̂ÓË ÙË ı¤ÛË ÙÔ˘,ı· ÌÔÚ› Ó· ¯ÂÈÚÈÛÙ› ÙÔ ¯ÚÔÓ›-˙ÔÓ Úfi‚ÏËÌ· ·fi ÏÂÔÓÂÎÙÈÎfi-ÙÂÚË ı¤ÛË.

∂Ô̤ӈ˜, ηı›ÛÙ·Ù·È ÚÔÊ·-Ó¤˜ fiÙÈ ÔÈ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂȘ,ÙÔ ÂӉ¯fiÌÂÓÔ Ô˘ ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿-ÛÙËΠÂ͇ÚÂÛ˘ χÛ˘ ‚¿ÛÂÈۯ‰›Ô˘ ÚÔÙÂÈÓfiÌÂÓÔ˘ ·fi ÙË°ÂÓÈ΋ °Ú·ÌÌ·Ù›· ÙˆÓ ∏ӈ̤-ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ, Ë ÚfiÙ·ÛË ·fi ÙËÓÙÔ˘ÚÎÔ΢Úȷ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ÁÈ· Û˘-Ó¤¯ÈÛË ÙˆÓ ‰ÈÌÂÚÒÓ Â·ÊÒÓ, η-ÙfiÈÓ Ù˘ ·ÔÚÚÈÙÈ΋˜ ÛÙ¿ÛË˜Ô˘ Ë ›‰È· ÂÂʇϷÍ › ÙÔ˘Û¯Â‰›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ °ÂÓÈÎÔ‡ °Ú·ÌÌ·Ù¤·ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ, Ë -¤ÛÙˆÎ·È Ê·ÈÓÔÌÂÓÈ΋(;)- ÌÂÙ·ÛÙÚÔÊ‹Ù˘ ·‰È¿ÏÏ·ÎÙ˘ ̤¯ÚÈ Û‹ÌÂÚ·

ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ Ï¢-Ú¿˜, ÔÈ ÂÓÙ¿ÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfiÙ˘ «∆Ô˘ÚÎÈ΋˜ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ Ù˘µÔÚ›·˜ ∫‡ÚÔ˘» (·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ù˘∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜), ı· Ú¤ÂÈ, ·Ó·ÌÊ›‚Ô-Ï·, Ó· ıˆÚËıÔ‡Ó ˆ˜ ·fiÙÔÎÔ,·ÊÂÓfi˜ Ù˘ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋˜ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘Ù˘ ∫˘Úȷ΋˜ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂. ηÈ, ·ÊÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ Ù˘ ı¤-Ûˆ˜ ·˘Ù‹˜ Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËÎÂÛÙÔ ∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ.

¶¤Ú·, fï˜, ·fi ÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ 9ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ, ȉȷ›ÙÂ-ÚË ÛËÌ·Û›· ¤¯Ô˘Ó Î·È ‰‡Ô ¿ÏÏ·¿ÚıÚ· ÙÔ˘ ›‰ÈÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘. ªÂ ÙÔ¿ÚıÚÔ 12, ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô Â›Ó·È ÂȉÈο·ÊÈÂڈ̤ÓÔ ÛÙËÓ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·, ·Ó·-ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÙ·È Ë ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ˆ˜ ˘Ô-„‹ÊÈ· ÚÔ˜ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ¯ÒÚ·, ·fi-Ê·ÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ··ÈÙ›ÙÔ Î·ÈË ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ Û‡ÌʈÓË ÁÓÒÌË2…∂ÈϤÔÓ, Á›ÓÂÙ·È ·Ó·ÊÔÚ¿ ÛÙȘÌÂÙ·ÚÚ˘ıÌ›ÛÂȘ Ô˘ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó·Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈËıÔ‡Ó ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ-Îfi Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ÛÙË Û˘ÌÌfiÚʈ-ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈÎÔ‡ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ ÚÔ˜Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· Ù˘ ∫ÔÂÁ¯¿Á˘ -ηÈȉ›ˆ˜ Û ۯ¤ÛË Ì ٷ ÔÏÈÙÈο ÂÍ’·˘ÙÒÓ3-, Ì ¤ÌÊ·ÛË ÛÙÔ ı¤Ì·ÙˆÓ ·ÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ ‰ÈηȈ̿وÓ4.

∆¤ÏÔ˜, ÛÙÔ ¿ÚıÚÔ 4 ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂ-

H Ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική της Κύπρου στα πρώτα της βήµατα.

Page 18: European Expression - Issue 48

Ù·È fiÙÈ, ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Ù· ˘Ô„‹-ÊÈ· ÚÔ˜ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÎÚ¿ÙË (¿Ú· ηÈË ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·) Ó· ·ÔÙÂϤÛÔ˘Ó, ÛÙÔ̤ÏÏÔÓ, ̤ÏË Ù˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘, Ú¤-ÂÈ Ó· Û˘ÌÌÂÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·È ÙȘ ·Ú¯¤˜Ù˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘ Î·È È‰›ˆ˜ ÙËÓ ·Ú¯‹Ù˘ ÂÈÚËÓÈ΋˜ Â›Ï˘Û˘ ÙˆÓ ‰È·-ÊÔÚÒÓ, ‚¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜Ô˘ ÚԂϤÂÈ Ô Ã¿ÚÙ˘ ÙˆÓ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ. ∂ÈϤÔÓ, ·-ÚÔÙÚ‡ÓÔÓÙ·È Ù· ÎÚ¿ÙË Ó· ηٷ-‚¿ÏÔ˘Ó Î¿ı ‰˘Ó·Ù‹ ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ·ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛË «Î¿ı ÂÎÎÚÂ-ÌÔ‡˜ Û˘ÓÔÚȷ΋˜ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¿˜ ηȿÏÏˆÓ Û˘Ó·ÊÒÓ ıÂÌ¿ÙˆÓ». ™Â·ÓÙ›ıÂÙË ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË, «ı· Ú¤ÂÈ(Ù· ÎÚ¿ÙË ·˘Ù¿) Ó· ʤÚÔ˘Ó ÙˉȷÊÔÚ¿ ÂÓÒÈÔÓ ÙÔ˘ ¢ÈÂıÓÔ‡˜¢ÈηÛÙËÚ›Ô˘ Ù˘ ÿÁ˘, ÂÓÙfi˜Â˘ÏfiÁÔ˘ ¯ÚÔÓÈÎÔ‡ ‰È·ÛÙ‹Ì·-ÙÔ˜». ™Â οıÂ, fï˜, ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË,ÙÔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ı· Â-·ÓÂÍÂÙ¿ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·ÛË, Ûٷ٤ÏË ÙÔ˘ 2004 ÙÔ ·ÚÁfiÙÂÚÔ,ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ «Ó· ÚÔ¿ÁÂÈ ÙËÓ Â-›Ï˘ÛË ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ ·˘ÙÒÓ, ̤-Ûˆ ÙÔ˘ ¢ÈÂıÓÔ‡˜ ¢ÈηÛÙËÚ›Ô˘»5.

¢È·ÈÛÙÒÓÂÙ·È, ÂÔ̤ӈ˜, fiÙÈÛÙÔ Î›ÌÂÓÔ Ô˘ ˘ÈÔıÂÙ‹ıËÎÂÛÙ· Ï·›ÛÈ· ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ, ¤Ú· ·-

fi ÙËÓ ·ÔÛ‡Ó‰ÂÛË Ù˘ ÂÓÙ·ÍÈ·-΋˜ ÔÚ›·˜ Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ·fi ÙËÓÂ›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·Ùfi˜ Ù˘(¿ÚıÚÔ 9), ·Ó·ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÂÙ·È Ë∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ˆ˜ ˘Ô„‹ÊÈ· ÚÔ˜ ¤-ÓÙ·ÍË ¯ÒÚ· (¿ÚıÚÔ 12), Ë ÔÔ›·,ÂÈϤÔÓ ÙˆÓ ÎÚÈÙËÚ›ˆÓ Ù˘ ∫Ô-ÂÁ¯¿Á˘, Ô˘ οı ˘Ô„‹ÊÈÔÚÔ˜ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó·ÏËÚÔ›, ηÏ›ٷÈ, ‚¿ÛÂÈ ÙÔ˘ ›‰ÈÔ˘¿ÚıÚÔ˘ 12 ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘, Ó· ·-ÓÙ·ÔÎÚÈı› Î·È ÛÙ· ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù·Ô˘ ı›ÁÔÓÙ·È ÛÙ· ¿ÚıÚ· 9 (∫˘-ÚÈ·Îfi) Î·È 4 (Â›Ï˘ÛË Û˘ÓÔÚÈ·-ÎÒÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ Î·È Û˘Ó·ÊÒÓ ıÂ-Ì¿ÙˆÓ). ∏ Û‡Ó‰ÂÛË Ô˘ οÓÂÈ ÙÔ›‰ÈÔ ÙÔ Î›ÌÂÓÔ, Û˘Ó‰¤ÔÓÙ·˜ Ù·¿ÚıÚ· 12, 9 Î·È 4, ‰ÂÓ ·Ê‹ÓÂÈ Î·-Ì›· ·ÌÊÈ‚ÔÏ›· ÁÈ· ÙÔ fiÙÈ ‰ËÌÈ-Ô˘ÚÁÂ›Ù·È ¤Ó· ϤÁÌ·, ¤Ó· «Û‡-ÛÙËÌ·», ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ÂËÚ¿˙ÂÈ ÌÂÙÚfiÔ ¿ÌÂÛÔ Î·È Î·ıÔÚÈÛÙÈÎfi ÙÔ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È ÙȘ ÂÏÏËÓÔ-ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈΤ˜ Û¯¤ÛÂȘ.

™ÙËÓ Èı·Ó‹ ÂΉԯ‹, Û‡ÌʈӷÌ ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· Ë ∫‡ÚÔ˜, ‚¿ÛÂÈ Î·ÈÙÔ˘ ¿ÚıÚÔ˘ 9 ·Ú. 2 ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤-ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÏÛ›ÓÎÈ, ÂÓÙ·¯ı› ¿ÌÂÛ·ÛÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ÔÈÎÔ‰fiÌËÌ·, ¯ˆ-Ú›˜ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓË Ï‡ÛË Â› ÙÔ˘ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜, ÙfiÙÂ

Û·ÊÒ˜ ÙÔ ‰Èψ̷ÙÈÎfi Ù˘ ÏÂ-ÔÓ¤ÎÙËÌ· ı· Â›Ó·È ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ. ∏ ·-ÂÈÏ‹ Ô˘ ÂÎÙÔ͇ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ÂÚ› ÂÓۈ̷ÙÒÛˆ˜ÙÔ˘ ‚ÔÚ›Ԣ ÙÌ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÓËÛÈ-Ô‡, ÌfiÓÔ ˆ˜ ·ÂÈÏ‹ ÌÔÚ› Ó· Â-ÎÏËÊı›, ÂÓÙÂÙ·Á̤ÓË ÛÙ· Ï·›-ÛÈ· Ù˘ ÁÓˆÛÙ‹˜ «ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋˜Ù˘ ·ÂÈÏ‹˜» Ù˘ Á›ÙÔÓÔ˜. ∏ ÂÓ-ۈ̿وÛË ÙÔ˘ ‚ÔÚ›Ԣ ̤ÚÔ˘˜ı· Û‹Ì·ÈÓÂ, «·˘ÙÔÌ¿Ùˆ˜», ÙÔ Ù¤-ÏÔ˜ Ù˘ ÂÓÙ·Íȷ΋˜ ÔÚ›·˜ Ù˘∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ·ÊÔ‡, Û‡Ìʈӷ Ì ÙÔ¿ÚıÚÔ 4 ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ∂ÏÛ›Ó-ÎÈ, Ë Â›Ï˘ÛË Î¿ı ÂÎÎÚÂÌÔ‡˜Û˘ÓÔÚȷ΋˜ ‹ Û˘Ó·ÊÔ‡˜ ‰È·ÊÔ-Ú¿˜ ÚÔ¸ÔÙ›ıÂÙ·È, ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ÙÔ ˘Ô„‹ÊÈÔ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˜ Ó· ÂÓÙ·¯ı›ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂.. ∏ ÚÔÛ¿ÚÙËÛË ı· ›¯Âˆ˜ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ÙË Û˘ÓÔÚȷ΋ÁÂÈÙÓ›·ÛË ∫‡ÚÔ˘ Î·È ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜,ÂÓÒ Ë Â›Ï˘ÛË Ù˘ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¿˜ ı·Û˘ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Û ··Ú¤ÁÎÏÈÙË ÚÔ¸-fiıÂÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÚÔÔ-ÙÈ΋ Ù˘ ‰Â˘Ù¤Ú·˜ ÂÍ ·˘ÙÒÓ.∞ÓÂÍ¿ÚÙËÙ·, fï˜, ·fi ÙÔ ÂÓ‰Â-¯fiÌÂÓÔ ÚÔÛ¿ÚÙËÛ˘ ÙˆÓ Î·ÙÂ-¯Ô̤ӈÓ, Ë ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ÙÔ˘ ΢ÚÈ·-ÎÔ‡ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜ ı· ÚÔÛʤÚÂÈ ÛË-Ì·ÓÙÈÎfi ÚÔ‚¿‰ÈÛÌ· ÛÙËÓ ÂÏÏË-ÓÈ΋ / ΢Úȷ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿, Ë ÔÔ›·ı· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÂÈ ˘fi ·Û‡ÁÎÚÈÙ· ¢-ÓÔ˚ÎfiÙÂÚÔ˘˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ Ó· ‰È·Ú·Á-Ì·Ù¢ı› ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘ Ôχ·-ıÔ˘ Ó‹ÛÔ˘.

Àfi ÙÔ Ú›ÛÌ· Î·È ÙË ÏÔÁÈ΋Ԣ ÌfiÏȘ ÂȯÂÈÚ‹ıËΠӷ ·Ó·-Ï˘ı›, Ì ‚¿ÛË ÙÔ Ó¤Ô «ÂÚÈ‚¿Ï-ÏÔÓ» Ô˘ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ› Ë ÚÔÔÙÈ-΋ ¿ÌÂÛ˘ -ϤÔÓ- ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Ù˘∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂., Ì ‚¿ÛË Ùˉ˘Û¯ÂÚ‹ ı¤ÛË ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ËÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋ Î·È ÙÔ˘ÚÎÔ΢Úȷ΋ÏÂ˘Ú¿ ı· ÂÚȤÏıÔ˘Ó Û ÂÚ›-ÙˆÛË ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Ù˘ ∫˘Úȷ΋˜¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂. ¯ˆÚ›˜ÙËÓ ÚÔËÁÔ‡ÌÂÓË Â›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, ηı›ÛÙ·ÓÙ·È Â‡ÎÔÏ·ÂÍËÁ‹ÛÈ̘ ÔÈ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù˜ ÂÍÂÏ›-

16 ∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Και η Κύπρος χωρίς «σύνορα».

Page 19: European Expression - Issue 48

∫ À ¶ ƒ √ ™ - ∆ √ À ƒ ∫ π ∞ - ∂ ∂ 17

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

1. µ¤‚·È·, ˆ˜ ¿ÌÂÛË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Ô˘ ÌfiÏȘ ·-

Ú·Ù¤ıËÎÂ, ›¯Â ÙÔÔıÂÙËı› ÌÈ· ȉȷÈÙ¤Úˆ˜ ·Û·Ê‹˜ ÚfiÙ·ÛË,

Û‡Ìʈӷ Ì ÙËÓ ÔÔ›·, ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Ó· ·ÔÊ·ÛÈÛı› Ë ¤ÓÙ·-

ÍË Ù˘ ∫‡ÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÓˆÛË, ¿Ó¢ Ù˘ ÚÔËÁÔ‡-

ÌÂÓ˘ Â›Ï˘Û˘ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, «∆Ô ™˘Ì‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ı· Ï¿‚ÂÈ ˘-

fi„Ë fiÏ· Ù· Û¯ÂÙÈο ÛÙÔȯ›·.». ∏ ·Û¿ÊÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ-

Ô‡ÌÂÓÔ˘ fiÚÔ˘ «Û¯ÂÙÈο ÛÙÔȯ›·», Â›Ó·È ÚÔÊ·Ó‹˜. ™Â οıÂ

ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË, ÌÈ· ·fiÚÈÛÙË ¤ÓÓÔÈ·, fiˆ˜ ·˘Ù‹, Âȉ¤¯ÂÙ·È, ·-

Ó·ÌÊÈÛ‚‹ÙËÙ·, ÔÏÏÒÓ ÂÚÌËÓÂÈÒÓ, ‰˘Ó·Ì¤ÓˆÓ Ó· ηχ„Ô˘Ó,

Û ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi ›‰Ô, οı Èı·Ó‹ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈ΋ ÂͤÏÈÍË!

2. ∏ ÌÂÙ·ÛÙÚÔÊ‹ Ù˘ ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋˜ Â͈ÙÂÚÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜,

Û ۯ¤ÛË Ì ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÁÓÒÚÈÛË Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ˆ˜ ˘Ô„‹ÊÈ·˜

ÚÔ˜ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË ¯ÒÚ·˜, ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÔÙÂϤÛÂÈ ·ÓÙÈΛÌÂÓÔ ÂÓÙÔÓfi-

Ù·Ù˘ ÎÚÈÙÈ΋˜. ™Â οı ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË, Ë fiÔÈ· ·ÚÓËÙÈ΋ ÎÚÈÙÈ-

΋ ‹ ıÂÙÈ΋ ·ÔÙ›ÌËÛË ı· ÛÙÔȯÂÈÔıÂÙËı› ÂÎ ÙÔ˘ ·ÔÙÂϤ-

ÛÌ·ÙÔ˜, ÙfiÛÔ Â› ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, fiÛÔ Î·È Â› ÙˆÓ ‰ÈÌÂÚÒÓ

Û¯¤ÛÂˆÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰Ô˜-∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜.

3. ∞·ÈÙÂ›Ù·È Ó· ÚÔËÁËı› ÌÈ· ‰È·‰Èηۛ· ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋˜

ÌÂÙ·ÚÚ‡ıÌÈÛ˘ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ Î·È ÂÎÛ˘Á¯ÚÔÓÈÛÌÔ‡ ÙˆÓ ÂÛˆ-

ÙÂÚÈÎÒÓ Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÒÓ, ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÒÓ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ ‰ÔÌÒÓ

ȉȷ›ÙÂÚ· Ì·ÎÚÔ¯ÚfiÓÈ·, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Â›ÔÓË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ›‰È·, ÛÙÔ

‚·ıÌfi Ô˘ ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È Û ۇÁÎÚÔ˘ÛË Ì ıÂÌÂÏÈÒ‰ÂȘ Î·È ¿ÁÈ-

Ô˘˜ ıÂÛÌÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡ Ù˘ Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜.

4. ™Â ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÛËÌ›Ô, ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜, ÂÓÙÔ›˙ÂÙ·È Î·È Ë ÛËÌ·Û›·

ÙˆÓ Î·Ù·‰ÈηÛÙÈÎÒÓ ÂȘ ‚¿ÚÔ˜ Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜ ·ÔÊ¿ÛˆÓ

ÙÔ˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ¢ÈηÛÙËÚ›Ô˘ ÙˆÓ ¢ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ∞ÓıÚÒ-

Ô˘, ÙfiÛÔ Â› ÙˆÓ ·ÔηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓˆÓ ˆ˜ «Î˘ÚÈ·ÎÒÓ ˘Ôı¤-

Ûˆӻ (˘fiıÂÛË §Ô˚˙›‰Ô˘, 4Ë Î˘Úȷ΋ ÚÔÛÊ˘Á‹ Î.Ï..)

ÁÈ· ÙȘ ·Ú·‚È¿ÛÂȘ ÙˆÓ ·ÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ ‰ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÛÙËÓ ∫‡-

ÚÔ, fiÛÔ Î·È Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚ·.

5. ∞ÓÂÍ·Úًو˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡, Â›Ó·È ÚÔÊ·Ó‹˜ Ë ÛËÌ·-

Û›· Ù˘ ı¤Û˘ ·˘Ù‹˜ › ÙˆÓ ÂÏÏËÓÔÙÔ˘ÚÎÈÎÒÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ (‹

‰È·ÊÔÚ¿˜) ÛÙÔ ∞ÈÁ·›Ô, ÙÔ ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÌfi ÙÔ˘˜ ˆ˜ ÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ

(ÓÔÌÈ΋˜) Î·È ÙËÓ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ ÚÔÛÊ˘Á‹˜ ÛÙÔ ¢ÈÂıÓ¤˜ ¢Èη-

ÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ.

6. ÷ڷÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈÎfiÙÂÚË, ›Ûˆ˜, ·˘ÙÒÓ, ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û ӷ

ıˆÚËı› Ë «ÚÔÂȉÔÔ›ËÛË» ·fi «Â˘Úˆ·˚ο ¯Â›ÏË» ÚÔ˜

ÙËÓ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÈ΋ – ÙÔ˘ÚÎÔ΢Úȷ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿, ηÙfiÈÓ Ù˘ ·fiÚ-

ÚȄ˘ ÙÔ˘ ·Ó·ıˆÚË̤ÓÔ˘ ۯ‰›Ô˘ ÙÔ˘ °ÂÓÈÎÔ‡ °Ú·ÌÌ·Ù¤·

ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ∂ıÓÒÓ, fiÙÈ, ηÙfiÈÓ Ù˘ ¤ÓÙ·Í˘ Ù˘ ∫˘-

Úȷ΋˜ ¢ËÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ ÛÙËÓ ∂.∂., Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ· ı· η٤¯ÂÈ ·-

Ú·Ófï˜ «Â˘Úˆ·˚ο ‰¿ÊË».

7. µ¤‚·È·, fiÛÔ ÎÈ ·Ó Ë Û˘Á΢ڛ· Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Â˘ÓÔ˚΋ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ

ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ – ÂÏÏËÓÔ΢Úȷ΋ ÏÂ˘Ú¿, Ë Â›Ï˘ÛË ÂÓfi˜ ÙfiÛÔ

‰‡ÛÎÔÏÔ˘ Î·È ¯ÚÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙÔ˜ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜, fiˆ˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·-

ÎÔ‡, ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚ› ·Ú¿ Ó· Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ÂÓfi˜ Âη٤-

ÚˆıÂÓ Û˘Ì‚È‚·ÛÌÔ‡.

8. ∞ÎfiÌ· Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ ÚÔÛ‰ÔÎÒÌÂÓË Â›Ï˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ ∫˘-

ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜, ÙÔ ∫˘ÚÈ·Îfi ı· ÂÍ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı‹ÛÂÈ, ·-

Ó·ÌÊ›‚ÔÏ·, Ó· Û˘ÓÈÛÙ¿ ÙÔ Â‰›Ô ¤Ú¢ӷ˜ Î·È ÂÓ·Û¯fiÏËÛ˘

ÔÏÏÒÓ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈÎÒÓ ÎÏ¿‰ˆÓ, ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓ ÔÔ›ˆÓ Ù˘ ÓÔ-

ÌÈ΋˜ ÂÈÛÙ‹Ì˘, Û¯ÂÙÈο Ì ÙË ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙÔ˘ ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷ-

ÎÔ‡ ÌÔÓÙ¤ÏÔ˘, Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÂÈÛÙ‹Ì˘, Û¯ÂÙÈο Ì ÙȘ ‡-

ıÚ·˘ÛÙ˜ ÈÛÔÚÚԛ˜ Ô˘ ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÙËÚÔ‡ÓÙ·È ÌÂٷ͇

ÙˆÓ ‰‡Ô ÔÌfiÛÔÓ‰ˆÓ ÂÓÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ Î·È ÙÔ˘ ÚfiÏÔ˘ Ù˘ ∂ÏÏ¿‰Ô˜

Î·È Ù˘ ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·˜, ÙˆÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ ÂÈÛÙËÌÒÓ, ·ÏÏ¿ ·ÎfiÌ·

Î·È Ù˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÔÏÔÁ›·˜ (Û¯¤ÛÂȘ ∂ÏÏËÓÔ΢ڛˆÓ – ∆Ô˘ÚÎÔ-

΢ڛˆÓ) Î.·.. ™’ ·˘Ùfi ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ÙÔ ÛËÌÂ›Ô ÂÓÙÔ›˙ÂÙ·È Î·È Ë

ÚÔ‚ÏËÌ·ÙÈ΋ Ù˘ «‚ȈÛÈÌfiÙËÙ·˜» Ù˘ ÂȉȈÎfiÌÂÓ˘ χ-

Û˘.

™ËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ

ÍÂȘ, ÙÔ fi„ÈÌÔ «ÂӉȷʤÚÔÓ» Ù˘ÙÔ˘ÚÎÔ΢Úȷ΋˜ ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜, ·ÏÏ¿Î·È ÔÈ «¤ÍˆıÂÓ» ·ÛÎËı›Û˜ ‰È-ψ̷ÙÈΤ˜ «È¤ÛÂȘ»6 ÚÔ˜ Ù·ÂÌÏÂÎfiÌÂÓ· ̤ÚË, ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘·˘Ù¿ Ó· ‰Ú·ÛÙËÚÈÔÔÈËıÔ‡ÓÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË Û˘ÁÎÂÚ·-ÛÌÔ‡ ÙˆÓ ·ÓÙÈÙÈı¤ÌÂÓˆÓ ·fi„Â-ÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜. µÚÈÛÎfiÌ·ÛÙÂ, ÂÔ̤-Óˆ˜, Û ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô «ÚÔÁÂÓÓËÙÈÎÒÓÛ·ÛÌÒÓ», ηÙfiÈÓ Ì·ÎÚ¿˜ Â-ÚÈfi‰Ô˘ «Î˘ÔÊÔÚ›·˜»!

¢˘ÛÙ˘¯Ò˜, ÔÈ ÚfiÛÊ·Ù˜ ÂÍÂ-Ï›ÍÂȘ ÛÙÔ πÚ¿Î Î·È Ë ÎÚ›ÛË Ô˘·˘Ù¤˜ «ÎÏËÚÔ‰fiÙËÛ·Ó» ÛÙËÓ∂.∂. ·ÔÌ¿ÎÚ˘Ó·Ó ·fi ÙÔ ÚÔ-Û΋ÓÈÔ ÙË ‰È‡ڢÓÛË Ù˘ ÙÂÏ¢-

Ù·›·˜, ÂÓÒ, Ë Ú¢ÛÙfiÙËÙ· Ô˘‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÂ›Ù·È Û ÂÚÈÊÂÚÂÈ·Îfi -ª¤ÛË ∞Ó·ÙÔÏ‹-, ·ÏÏ¿ ηÈ, ¢ڇ-ÙÂÚ·, Û ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈÔ Â›Â‰Ô, ηÈ,΢ڛˆ˜, Ë ‰˘Û¯ÂÚ‹˜ ı¤ÛË ÛÙËÓ Ô-Ô›· de facto ÂÚÈ‹ÏıÂ Ë ∆Ô˘ÚΛ·,Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ‰ÚÔ˘Ó Î·Ù·ÛÙ·ÏÙÈο› ÙÔ˘ ¢ÓÔ˚ÎÔ‡ «·Ó¤ÌÔ˘» ›ÙÔ˘ ∫˘ÚÈ·ÎÔ‡. ¶·Ú¿ ÙËÓ ·Ù˘¯‹,fï˜, ·˘Ù‹ Û˘Á΢ڛ·, ·Ó·Ì¤ÓÔ˘-Ì fiÏÔÈ, Ì ȉȷ›ÙÂÚÔ ÂӉȷʤÚÔÓ,Ó· ‰Ô‡Ì ·Ó ÙÔ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· Ù˘ÚÔ·Ó·ÊÂÚı›Û˘ «Î˘ÔÊÔÚ›·˜»,¤Ú· ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÌÂÓfiÌÂÓË ¤ÓÙ·-ÍË Ù˘ ªÂÁ·ÏÔÓ‹ÛÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ-·˚΋ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂÈ·, ı· Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ¿-‚ÂÈ Î·È ÙËÓ Â›Ï˘ÛË7 ÙÔ˘ ¯ÚÔÓ›˙Ô-

ÓÙÔ˜ ÚÔ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔ˜. ∞ӷ̤ÓÔ˘ÌÂfiÏÔÈ Ó· ‰Ô‡Ì ·Ó Ë ÌÂÙ·ÛÙÚÔÊ‹Ù˘ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ Ù˘ ÙÔ˘ÚÎÔ΢ÚÈ·-΋˜ ÏÂ˘Ú¿˜ ¤¯ÂÈ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈÎfi ¯·-Ú·ÎÙ‹Ú· Î·È ÚÔÔÙÈΤ˜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘Ú-Á›·˜ ÂÍÂÏ›ÍÂˆÓ ‹ ·Ï¿ ·ÔÛÎÔ›ÛÙËÓ ÎˆÏ˘ÛÈÂÚÁ›· Î·È ÛÙË ‰ËÌÈ-Ô˘ÚÁ›· ÂÓÙ˘ÒÛˆÓ. ∞ӷ̤ÓÔ˘-ÌÂ, Ù¤ÏÔ˜, fiÏÔÈ Ó· ‰Ô‡Ì ·Ó ËÚÔÛ‰ÔÎÒÌÂÓË Û˘Ìʈӛ· (·Ó, ÙÂ-ÏÈο, ÂÈÙ¢¯ı›) ı· Â›Ó·È fiÓÙˆ˜«‰›Î·ÈË» ηÈ, ΢ڛˆ˜, «‚ÈÒÛÈÌË»8

Î·È ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÈ΋, ÂÍ·ÛÊ·Ï›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ÙÔ ÂÓÈ·›Ô Î·È ·‰È·›ÚÂÙÔ Ù˘ Ó‹-ÛÔ˘, ÛÙËÚÈ˙fiÌÂÓË ÛÙ· Ï·›ÛÈ·Ì›·˜, fi¯È ÌfiÓÔ Î·Ù’ fiÓÔÌ·, ·ÏÏ¿Î·È Î·Ù’ Ô˘Û›· √ÌÔÛÔÓ‰›·˜.

Page 20: European Expression - Issue 48

18 ∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

From EPC to CFSP

The CFSP created in the1992 Treaty on European U-nion is but the latest in a

long series of attempts of the EU

members to co-ordinate their for-eign policy. The first successful at-tempt to do so – after the failedEuropean Defence Community(EDC) of the early 1950s and theunsuccessful Fouchet Plans of

the early 1960s – was EuropeanPolitical Co-operation (EPC),which came into being in 1970and represented a modest form offoreign policy co-ordination. It in-volved a network of European for-

EUROPE'S COMMON FOREIGN POLICY:

Developing a common foreign and securi-ty policy for the European Union has beena slow and painstaking process of imper-fect compromises. The perception of for-

eign policy as a field of ‘high politics’ incontrast with that of the economy whichhas always been seen as a field of ‘low

politics’ has led to the resistance of mem-ber states of the European Union (EU) to

effectively move towards integration insuch a sensitive field, which is considered

central to their independent life and acherished aspect of their sovereignty. As

in all aspects of European Integration, theprerequisite for the development of a

common European foreign policy is a con-vergence of the perceived interests of the

member states to the point that they ei-ther do not longer fear that the common

policy would diverge significantly fromtheir national policy or that the develop-

ment of an important common interest isworth sacrificing national autonomy. In

other words, states will only decide toshare their foreign policy sovereigntywhen the gains of common action are sogreat that they outweigh the costs of lostsovereignty or if their interests convergeto the point where little loss of sovereigntyis entailed. Those conditions have not yetbeen met in European foreign policy mak-ing as will be shown in this article, a factthat accounts for the failures of the EU topresent a coherent, strong and cohesivevoice on the international scene. Following the recent failed attempts of theEuropean Union to establish a commonposition on the issue of the war against I-raq, this article will try to assess the ex-tent to which foreign policy co-operationhas been achieved in the EU, to definethe major questions that regard its futureand to evaluate the dynamics unleashedby its recent failure that have thestrongest predictive strength over its fu-ture development.

How well

EU doing?is the

by Maria PanagiariMSc. European Studies: EU Policy - Making, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

Page 21: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏ 19

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

eign ministers, political directorsand other diplomats who soughtthrough regular meetings to ex-change information and to co-ordi-nate their foreign policies at theabsence of a more integrated ap-proach. It had no formal status inthe EC treaties and was entirelyintergovernmental.

The 1987 Single European Actcodified the practices of EPC andgave it a place in the EC treatiesfor the first time. It gave the Com-mission a role in the ‘political andeconomic aspects of security’ andcalled on EC governments not toblock, whenever possible, the for-mation of a consensus. Despitethese strengthened provisions,EPC played a limited role in Euro-pean foreign policy making with itsoutcomes being mostly declarato-ry in nature, based on consensusand more or less focused on pe-ripheral or uncontroversial issues(e.g. the Conference on Securityand Co-operation in Europe andthe Iran-Iraq war) rather thandealing with core issues (e.g. theSoviet Union, Central Europe, de-fence). One of EPC’s highlightswas its role in coordinating Euro-pean foreign policy as regards theMiddle East, beginning with theEuro-Arab dialogue of the late1970s and culminating with theVenice Declaration on the Arab-Is-raeli peace process, which soughtto distinguish EU from US policyby emphasizing the ‘legitimaterights of the Palestinian people’and calling for the Palestinian Lib-eration Organization to have arole in the peace process.1

Nonetheless, even in this areawhere EC policies were fairly wellcoordinated, they remained es-sentially declaratory and the ECplayed hardly any role at all when

the Middle East peace process fi-nally began in 1991. Despite itslimited scope, however, oneshould not disregard the fact thatregular contacts conducted withinthe EPC framework led to aprocess of socialization and to abetter understanding of the differ-ent positions among the EC mem-bers, which, in turn, facilitated theseeking of common positions.

The fall of the Berlin Wall andthe collapse of the Soviet Union inthe early 1990s changed the polit-ical landscape of Europe com-pletely and marked the end of thebi-polar world order. With the endof the Cold War and German unifi-cation, France became convincedthat the EC’s foreign policy had tobe strengthened, if only to con-strain what was now a fully sover-eign Germany. Furthermore, asthe EC matured in other respects– with the creation of the SingleMarket – the extent to which anexternal and security policy waslagging behind became steadilymore apparent. The experiencefrom trade negotiations with thirdcountries had already proved theextra leverage the EC had on theinternational scene when speak-ing with a single voice. But mostdramatically, the revolutions incentral and eastern Europe andthe disintegration of Yugoslaviaforced the EC to tackle real insta-bility on its borders, instability thatwas propelling waves of refugeesinto western European cities2.

The result was the 1990-91 Eu-ropean Intergovernmental Confer-ence (IGC) on political union,which was added to the IGC onmonetary union already sched-uled for that year and which con-cluded at Maastricht in December1991. The Maastricht Treaty cre-

ated a new, three pillar structurefor what was to be named the Eu-ropean Union (EU) and the EPCwas absorbed into the new struc-ture of the EU as the CommonForeign and Security Policy (CF-SP) pillar. This pillar remained es-sentially intergovernmental in pro-cedures and was kept clearly sep-arated from the supranationalrealm of the EC, which constitutedthe first pillar.

Like all the previous steps inthe history of European Integra-tion, the CFSP created at Maas-tricht reflected a lowest-common-denominator compromise amongthe competing interests of the U-nion’s member states. Morespecifically, the compromise wasbetween Germany who soughtthe development of a common for-eign policy within an integratedCommunity framework in returnfor German acceptance of mone-tary union, and the French andBritish governments who resistedthe transfer of authority over for-eign policy to the Community outof fear that this would generate in-cremental pressures for the use ofQMV in decision making. On thesecurity and defence side, therewas another division between ‘at-lanticists’ (Britain, the Netherlandsand Portugal), resisting any sub-stantial weakening of the AtlanticAlliance and ‘europeanists’(France, Belgium and Italy). Thus,the result of the Maastricht negoti-ations in the wake of momentousinternational change was limitedand did not reflect a qualitativeleap forward. The external stimu-lus provided an incentive for fur-ther integration, but the perceivedgains of scale had not convergedsignificantly: the prerequisites forintegration in the ‘high politics’ of

Page 22: European Expression - Issue 48

20 ∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

foreign policy had not yet beenmet.

It does not fall within the scopeof this article to enumerate all theCFSP’s provisions included in theMaastricht Treaty. Most observerswould agree that the CFSP repre-sented at the time a stronger com-mitment to common policies, asthe Treaty required member s-tates to ‘ensure that their nationalpositions conform to the commonpositions of the CFSP’. Rhetoric,however, is far from substanceand the disunity among Europeanleaders was reflected in the Ger-man government’s threat to unilat-erally recognize Croatia shouldthe EU fail to do so, despite thepressures it exerted for a bindingcommitment to a CFSP during theMaastricht IGC3.

On the institutional side, no sig-nificant progress was made to-wards the adoption of QualifiedMajority Voting (QMV) in foreignpolicy and although CFSP wassupposed to deal with all aspectsrelated to the security of the Unionand for the first time referred to‘the eventual framing of a com-mon defence policy, which mightin time lead to a common de-fence’, it took no practical stepstowards the realization of this goaland gave no defence role at all tothe integrated institutions.

The Amsterdam provisionson CFSP

The Maastricht Treaty on Eu-ropean Union (TEU) com-mitted the signatories to re-

port on the operation of CFSP to afurther IGC, to be convened in1996. In the interim, from 1992-96, successive failures of the EUgovernments to present a single

European voice on the interna-tional scene had led to a consen-sus that CFSP had not been ef-fective. The Bosnian conflict haddemonstrated the inability of Eu-ropean states to reach common a-greement in crisis and the weak-ness of the EU in the securityfield. It also demonstrated the de-gree of dependence on the USand the UN. Furthermore, the uni-lateral French intervention in R-wanda in 1994, Greece’s vetoover the recognition of FYROM,the UK’s isolated support for USair strikes on Iraq in 1996 and theFrench and German unwillingnessin 1997 to agree on a EU resolu-tion critical of China’s humanrights record, were all examples ofthe limits of foreign policy co-oper-ation when perceived national in-terests were at stake.

At the 1996-97 IGC concludedin Amsterdam in June 1997, al-though the lack of political will wascorrectly blamed for many of theCFSP’s failures, most actors wereconvinced that institutions affectcooperation and that some institu-tional changes would help im-prove the CFSP’s record4.

Thus, the Treaty of Amsterdamintroduced a series of limited insti-tutional changes, which can besummarized as follows: the estab-lishment of a Policy Planning andEarly Warning Unit (PPEWU), asthere was agreement on the ne-cessity for a long-term planningcapacity; the extension of QMVwhen the Union adopted commonpositions or joint actions, basedon common strategies defined u-nanimously by the Council.Hence, QMV would essentially beconfined to the ‘implementation’stages of foreign policy, whereasthe strategic choices would have

to be agreed unanimously. Fur-thermore, decisions could be tak-en on the basis of ‘constructiveabstention’, where abstentions bymember states representing up toa third of the weighted voteswould not prevent the Unionadopting a position. The Commis-sion was to be ‘fully associated’,but the Council and Presidencyretained the initiative and the Eu-ropean Parliament was marginallystrengthened in CFSP by meansof budgetary procedure.

But most significantly, the U-nion’s external representation wasenhanced. Three decades agoHenry Kissinger had supposedlycomplained of not knowing whomto phone when he wanted to talkto ‘Europe’. This was because theEU’s external representation suf-fered mainly from three weak-nesses: the lack of visibility, conti-nuity and coherence. Thus, therewas general agreement that therotating EU presidency was nolonger an adequate foundation forconcerted diplomacy. In order toenhance the Union’s visibility onthe international scene, the Ams-terdam Treaty introduced a newfigure in the external representa-tion of the EU: the High Repre-sentative for the CFSP conductedby the Secretary-General of theCouncil. Apart from that and in or-der to enhance the continuity andcoherence in the Union’s externalrepresentation, the AmsterdamTreaty introduced a new styleTroika including the Council Presi-dency, the High Representativeand the Commission. In this way,two of the three institutions – theHigh Representative and theCommission – are permanentmembers of the Troika. This wouldfacilitate the identification of the

Page 23: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏ 21

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

CFSP and the EC representativeand prevent confusion as to therespective areas of competence.

The War on Iraqand Europe’suncommon foreign policy

The terrorist attack of 9/11 inNew York has led US foreignpolicy to adhere to a dogma

of ‘pre-emptive war’ against terror-ism, culminating in the US strikeagainst Iraq. The US governmentsought to legitimise its use offorce and had initially opted for aUN Security Council second reso-lution that would allow the use offorce should the Iraqi governmentfail to cooperate with the UNweapons inspectors, conformablyto the Security Council’s first reso-lution. The failure, however, toconvince its Security Council part-ners for this second resolution re-sulted in US unilateral interventionin Iraq.

Europe, once more, failed todemonstrate the necessary politi-cal will to act efficiently and coher-ently under crisis. While Britain’spremier, Tony Blair, was eager toreaffirm Britain’s ‘special relation-ship’ with its US partners, a com-mon position between JacquesChirac and Gerhard Schroeder a-gainst an attack on Iraq was takenoutside the CFSP framework andwithout prior discussion with theirEU partners. Consequently, theGreek Presidency sought to ‘dosomething’ in order to remedy theUnion’s divided presence on theinternational scene, which con-cluded in a EU common positionon Iraq that stressed the need fora second UN Security Council res-olution legitimising the use offorce. A few days earlier the EU’s

voice in the world in foreign policy,the High Representative for theCFSP, Javier Solana, declared atan interview in ‘Le Monde’5 that ifsufficient evidence is not present-ed to the UN Security Council, hefound it very difficult that action a-gainst Iraq be taken. And althoughEurope presented a common po-sition on the question of Iraq, theheads of state and government offive EU (Britain, Italy, Spain, Por-tugal, Denmark) and three candi-date countries (Poland, Hungaryand the Czech Republic) reversedthe scenery only two days later, byhaving a joint declaration by whichthey expressed their solidarity andsupport for US unilateral action onIraq, regardless of a second UNresolution. Thus, the EU failedonce more to generate a commonapproach under the pressure ofan international crisis.

After Iraq what?Assessing the futureof CFSP

The Iraqi crisis has posed somefundamental questions about theEU’s CFSP. Some commentatorshave been eager to write off theprospect of a common Europeanforeign policy as a bad joke. Afterall, if the Yugoslav crisis on Eu-rope’s periphery, combined with adomineering US policy was not e-nough to motivate European lead-ers for an integrated foreign poli-cy, what would? Others have sug-gested that, as in the Yugoslavcrisis, the crisis over Iraq wouldaccelerate the pace of foreign pol-icy integration and provide a fur-ther stimulus for its development.One should not, however, forgetthat had it not been for the clearsignalling of the USA’s reluctance

to remain militarily involved in Eu-rope’s ‘back yard’, the Franco-British St. Malo Declaration andthe subsequent incorporation ofthe Petersberg tasks into a newlydefined common European Secu-rity and Defence Policy (ESDP)would not have occurred. At theabsence of such a pressing de-mand in Europe’s periphery it re-mains doubtful whether furtherimpetus will be given to the devel-opment of the CFSP.

More broadly, the inability of aUnion of 15 to take a common po-sition has raised questions re-garding the enlargement processand how this will affect foreign pol-icy making in a Europe of 25 s-tates. In the first place, it is clearthat an effective EU foreign policywill require more pooling of na-tional sovereignty. The member s-tates have taken some steps inthat direction, most importantly bythe appointment of Javier Solanaas the High Representative forCFSP. However, the crisis over I-raq has shown the limits of thisnew institution and its shortcom-ings in taking effective actionwhen confronted with a seriouscrisis. But ultimately, member s-tates also maintain that foreignpolicy should be conducted on anintergovernmental basis. And theproblem with the intergovernmen-tal approach is that decision-mak-ing is slow and difficult to achieve,and will be even more so in a EUof 25 states. This is partly a ques-tion of arithmetic but most impor-tantly a consequence of the factthat an enlarged Union to the eastwill be more diverse, for reasonsof geography and history6.

Given the different foreign poli-cies of the existing EU membersbut also the prospect of enlarge-

Page 24: European Expression - Issue 48

22

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ment outlined above, the alterna-tive seems to be a further exten-sion of the idea of ‘flexibility’ or of a‘variable geometry’ Europe, with acore of countries, possiblygrouped around the Franco - Ger-man axis, willing to go further in in-tegration and reducing the scopeof unanimity. Such an arrange-ment already exists in the Euro-zone and the Schengen accord.

On the other hand, one cannotbut come to the conclusion thatthe EU fiasco over Iraq was an ac-cident waiting to happen. The Eu-ropean Council had never conclud-ed on the EU’s strategic priorities,its place in the post-Cold War eraand in the various international or-ganisations. Nor was the Conven-tion given such a mandate. In con-trast, it was asked to improve theexisting CFSP procedures. So farits suggestions include7:

-the granting of a legal person-ality to the EU

-accepting more use of QMV-merging the Solana/Patten

functions to create an EU foreignminister

-establishing a European diplo-matic service and academy

-extending the PetersbergTasks

-introducing a solidarity clausefor terrorist attacks

-allowing flexibility in defencepolicy and in armaments coopera-tion

Taking a look at the develop-ment of Europe’s foreign policyfrom the creation of EPC to thecurrent reaction on the Iraq con-flict, one can agree with FrenchMEP, Alain Lamassoure, that theConvention debates on CFSPhave a surreal quality8. Thereseems to be no purpose in takingmeasures for more QMV and thecreation of a EU foreign ministerwhen the lack of political will, ex-pressed through the absence ofpriorities and long-term planning,was and remains at the source ofall of the CFSP’s shortcomings,manifested more intensely in

sudden and unexpected crises.Furthermore, insofar as Europeremains dependent on the US forits security, ‘special relationships’will always impede a commonEuropean approach to foreignpolicy issues. In fact, some com-mentators have gone as far as toargue that the possession by theEuropean Union of a militaryforce would compel the memberstates to be more serious in thedevelopment of a common EUforeign policy9. Ultimately, whathas become most urgent in thelight of recent developments andwith strong public support for aneffective CFSP, is for Europeanleaders to consider seriouslywhat kind of orientations the U-nion should give to its foreign pol-icy.

1. Gordon, Philip H., ‘Europe’s Uncommon Foreign Poli-

cy’, International Security, 22, 3, Winter 1997-98, pp. 74-100.

2. Patten, Christopher, Towards a common European for-

eign policy – How is the EU doing?, 19-10-2000,

www.theepc.be

3. Forster, Anthony and Wallace, William, ‘Common For-

eign and Security Policy’, in Helen Wallace and William Wal-

lace (eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union, 4th edition,

Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.

4. Smith, Michael E., ‘What’s wrong with the CFSP? The

politics of Institutional Reform’, in Laurent, Pierre-Henri and

Maresceau, Marc (eds.), The State of the European Union,

vol. 4, Deepening and Widening, Boulder, Co., Lynne Rien-

ner, 1998.

5. Masoura, Ritsa, Europe is unwilling for war,12-1-2003,

www.kathimerini.gr

6. Davidson, Ian, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy:

The Implications of Enlargement, 11-6-2000, www.theepc.be

7. Cameron, Fraser, After Iraq – Can there really be a fu-

ture for CFSP?, 18-3-2003, www.theepc.be

8. ibid.

9. Davidson, Ian, The European Union and its near

abroad, 22-11-2000, www.theepc.be

™ËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ

Α new era for Europe.

Page 25: European Expression - Issue 48

ªÂ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜, Û˘ÌÌ·-¯›Â˜, ·˙¿ÚÈ·, ·ÎfiÌ·Î·È «Î·Ù·Û΢¿˙ÔÓÙ·˜Û˘Ó·›ÓÂÛË» (ηٿ ÙÔÓ

∆ÛfiÌÛÎÈ) Ë ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋ ËÁÂÛ›·Â›ıÂÈ ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓ‹ ÁÓÒÌË fiÙÈ Ë ÙÚÔ-ÌÔÎÚ·Ù›· ¤¯ÂÈ ‰ÈÂÈÛ‰‡ÛÂÈ ·ÓÙÔ‡Î·È fiÙÈ Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÏËÊıÔ‡Ó Ì¤ÙÚ·ÚÔÛÙ·Û›·˜ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞, ›Ù ÂÓÈ-Û¯‡ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙËÓ ·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋ ÚÔÛÙ·-Û›· ·˘Ù‹˜ (.¯. Ì ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍËÓ¤·˜ ·ÓÙÈ˘Ú·˘ÏÈ΋˜ ¿Ì˘Ó·˜) ›-Ù ӷ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÔÔÈËıÔ‡Ó ÔÏÂÌÈ-Τ˜ ÂȯÂÈÚ‹ÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ ¤‰·ÊÔ˜ÙÚ›ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ Ô˘ ˘Ôı¿ÏÔ˘ÓÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈΤ˜ ÔÌ¿‰Â˜. ∏ Ó¤·ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙˆÓ ·ÂÈÏÒÓ Ô˘ ÓÈÒıÔ˘ÓÏÔÈfiÓ È· ÔÈ ∏¶∞ Ô‰‹ÁËÛ·ÓÛÙËÓ ÚÔÒıËÛË ÌÈ·˜ Ó¤·˜ ·Ú¯È-ÙÂÎÙÔÓÈ΋˜ Ù˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋˜ ¿-Ì˘Ó·˜. ∞˘Ù‹ ı· ‚·Û›˙ÂÙ·È Ï¤ÔÓÛ ÙÚÂȘ ˘ÏÒÓ˜. ∫·Ù’ ·Ú¯‹ÓÛÙÔÓ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÔÎÂÓÙÚÈÛÌfi, ‰ËÏ·-‰‹ ¤Ó· ‰fiÁÌ· ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔ›ËÛË˜ÙˆÓ ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂˆÓ Ô˘ ÌÂÁÈÛÙÔÔÈ›ٷ ÂıÓÈο Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙ·, ·ÎfiÌËÎ·È ÛÙȘ ÎÔÈÓ¤˜ ÂȯÂÈÚ‹ÛÂȘ ÌÂÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÌÌ¿¯Ô˘˜. ⁄ÛÙÂÚ·, ÛÙËÓ·ÁÎfiÛÌÈ· Ï·‚‹ ‹ ÙË ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÙË-Ù· Ó· ÚÔˆıÔ‡ÓÙ·È ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂȘ ·-ÓÙÔ‡, Û οı ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Î·È Û οıÂÂÚ›ÛÙ·ÛË. ∆¤ÏÔ˜, ÙË ÌfiÓÈÌËÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈ΋ ˘ÂÚÔ¯‹, Ì ¿ÏÏ·ÏfiÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÊ˘Á‹ ÛÙËÓ ÂÈ-ÛÙ‹ÌË, ÙËÓ Ù¯ÓÔÏÔÁ›· Î·È ÙÔ˘˜

∏ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ11Ë ™ÂÙÂÌ‚Ú›Ô˘

∆Ô ÙÚ›Ù˘¯Ô ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˜

√È ÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈΤ˜ ÂÈı¤ÛÂȘ Ù˘ 11˘ ™ÂÙÂÌ‚Ú›Ô˘2001 ¤‰ˆÛ·Ó Û¿Úη Î·È ÔÛÙ¿ ÛÙȘ «Ó¤Â˜·ÂÈϤ˜» Ô˘ ÔÈ ∏¶∞ ıˆÚÔ‡Ó fiÙÈ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙ÂÈÔ ÎfiÛÌÔ˜, ÌÂÙ¿ ÙÔÓ æ˘¯Úfi ¶fiÏÂÌÔ. √È ÂÈı¤ÛÂȘ

·˘Ù¤˜ ÎÏfiÓÈÛ·Ó ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈο ÙÔ ·›ÛıËÌ· ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜ ÙˆÓ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂÈÒÓ Î·È ÌÂÙ¤ÊÂÚ·Ó ÙÔÓ fiÏÂÌÔ Û·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎfi ¤‰·ÊÔ˜. ∫·ÏÏÈÂÚÁ‹ıËΠ¤ÙÛÈ ÛÙ·‰È·Î¿, ·ÏÏ¿·ÔÙÂÏÂÛÌ·ÙÈο, Ô ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎfi˜ ÂıÓÈÎÈÛÌfi˜ ηÈÂÙÔÈÌ¿ÛÙËÎÂ Ë ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋ ÎÔÈÓ‹ ÁÓÒÌË ÁÈ· Ù·ÌÂÁ·Ï‹‚ÔÏ· Û¯¤‰È· ÙˆÓ ıˆÚËÙÈÎÒÓ ÙÔ˘ƒÂÔ˘ÌÏÈηÓÈÛÌÔ‡.

ÙÔ˘ ∞ı·Ó¿ÛÈÔ˘ ∫ÔÙÛÈ·ÚÔ‡∆ÂÏÂÈfiÊÔÈÙÔ˘ ÊÔÈÙËÙ‹ ÙÔ˘ ª¶™ ¢ÈÂıÓÒÓ Î·È ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÒÓ ™Ô˘‰ÒÓ ¶·Ó/Ì›Ô˘ ∞ıËÓÒÓ

Το τροµοκρατικό χτύπηµα της 11ης Σεπτεµβρίου αποτέλεσε το αίτιο για τη δηµιουργία της νέας αµε-ρικανικής εξωτερικής πολιτικής.

∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏ 23

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Page 26: European Expression - Issue 48

24 ∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÔ‡˜ fiÚÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· Ó· ÂÍ·-ÛÊ·ÏÈÛÙ› Ë Û˘Ó¯‹˜ ·ÓˆÙÂÚfi-ÙËÙ· ÙˆÓ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÒÓ ÂÓfiψӉ˘Ó¿ÌˆÓ.1 ∏ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ‰˘Ó·ÙÔ-Ù‹ÙˆÓ ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋˜ ‰Ú¿Û˘ ›ӷÈÙÔ ÚÒÙÔ ÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô ÌÈ·˜ ÙÚÈ¿‰·˜Ë ÔÔ›· ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Î·È ‰‡Ô¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜:¶ÚÒÙÔÓ, ÙËÓ «·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋ ÈηÓfiÙË-Ù·», Ù˘ ÔÔ›·˜ ÙÔ ÈÔ ÓˆÙÂÚÈ-ÛÙÈÎfi ÂÚÁ·ÏÂ›Ô Â›Ó·È Ë ·ÓÙÈ˘-Ú·˘ÏÈ΋ ¿Ì˘Ó· ( Ë ÔÔ›· ¤Ú·ÛÂÛ ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô ÛÙ¿‰ÈÔ, Ì ÙËÓ Úfi-ÛÊ·ÙË ÂÈÙ˘¯›· ÌÈ·˜ ‰ÔÎÈÌ‹˜ η-Ù·ÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜ ÂÓfi˜ ˘Ú·‡ÏÔ˘ Ô˘ıˆڋıËΠˆ˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô˜ ·fi ¤Ó·Ó·ÓÙȇڷ˘ÏÔ Ô ÔÔ›Ô˜ ÂÎÙÔ͇-ÙËΠ·fi ÔÏÂÌÈÎfi ÛοÊÔ˜).¢Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ, ÌÈ· ˘Ô‰ÔÌ‹, ÈηӋ Ó··ÓÙ·ÔÎÚÈı› ÛÙȘ ÚÔÎÏ‹ÛÂÈ˜Ô˘ ·ÔηχÊıËÎ·Ó Ì ÙȘ ÂÈ-ı¤ÛÂȘ Ù˘ 11˘ ™ÂÙÂÌ‚Ú›Ô˘ ηÈË ÔÔ›· ı· ·Ô‚ϤÂÈ ÛÙÔ Ó· ÂÁ-Á˘Ëı› ÙÔ ¿ÙÚˆÙÔ ÙÔ˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ-ÎÔ‡ ‰¿ÊÔ˘˜ Î·È ı· ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿-ÓÂÈ, οو ·fi ÙËÓ ·ÈÁ›‰· ÂÓfi˜ ˘-Ô˘ÚÁ›Ԣ ∂ÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋˜ ∞ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ-·˜, 28 ‰ÈÔÈ΋ÛÂȘ Î·È 170.000 ·-ÍȈ̷ÙÔ‡¯Ô˘˜.∞ÏÏ¿, ÁÈ· ÙÔ «Û‡-ÛÙËÌ· ÂÈıÂÙÈÎÔ‡ Ï‹ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜»,ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ÚÔÔÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ÁÈ· οı«ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋ ‰Ú¿ÛË» Û‡ÌʈӷÌ ÙÔ Ó¤Ô ‰fiÁÌ·, ÂΛӘ Ô˘ ·Ì-ÊÈÛ‚ËÙÔ‡ÓÙ·È Â˘ı¤ˆ˜ Â›Ó·È ÔÈ ·-Ú·‰ÔÛȷΤ˜ ·ÓÙÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ÁÈ· Ù˯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔ›ËÛË ÙˆÓ ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓfiψÓ. Ÿ¯È fiÙÈ ÂÁηٷÏ›ÂÙ·È Ë˘ÚËÓÈ΋ ·ÔÙÚÔ‹, Ì ÙË Û˘ÓË-ıÈṲ̂ÓË ¤ÓÓÔÈ· ÙÔ˘ fiÚÔ˘, ·ÏÏ¿ÙÔ Ó¤Ô ‰fiÁÌ· ÚÔ¸Ôı¤ÙÂÈ ÌfiÓÔ¤Ó· ÂÚÈÔÚÈṲ̂ÓÔ ÔÏÔÛÙ¿ÛÈÔ,ηıÒ˜ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙ÂÙ·È ÌfiÓÔ Ë ·-ÎÚ·›· Î·È ÌË Èı·Ó‹ ˘fiıÂÛËÌÈ·˜ ÁÂÓÈ΋˜ ›ıÂÛ˘ ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ·ÛÙ· ˙ˆÙÈο Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙ· ÙˆÓ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂÈÒÓ ·fi Ì›·‰‡Ó·ÌË Ë ÔÔ›· ¤¯ÂÈ ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚÈ-ÛÙ› ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ηÈ, ηٿ Û˘Ó¤-ÂÈ·, Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆÈÛÙ›

Ì ̷˙ÈΤ˜ ηٷÛÙÚÔʤ˜. ∏ NPR(∞Ó·ıÂÒÚËÛË Ù˘ ¶˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ £¤-Û˘), Ô˘ ‰ËÌÔÛȇÙËΠÙÔÓ π·-ÓÔ˘¿ÚÈÔ, ÚԂϤÂÈ ÌÔÓÔÌÂÚ›˜ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÌÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘ ·ÚÈıÌÔ‡ ÙˆÓ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ ÎÂÊ·ÏÒÓ ÙÔ˘ ·ÌÂÚÈ-ηÓÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ÔÏÔÛÙ·Û›-Ô˘: ·fi 3.456, ·ÚÈıÌfi˜ Ô˘ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚ›ÛÙËΠ·fi ÙË Û˘Ìʈ-Ó›· Start ππ, Î·È ·fi 2.496, Û˘ÓÔ-ÏÈÎfi˜ ·ÚÈıÌfi˜ Ô˘ ÚԂϤÂÙ·È·fi ÙȘ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù‡ÛÂȘ Ù˘Start πππ, ÂÚ¿Û·Ì ÛÙȘ 2.200.∞˘Ùfi˜ Ô ·ÚÈıÌfi˜ ‰È·ÙËÚ‹ıËΠ·-fi ÙË Û˘Ìʈӛ· Ô˘ ¤ÁÈÓ ÛÙȘ25 ª·˝Ô˘ 2002, ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙȘ∏ӈ̤Ó˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙ›˜ Î·È ÙË ƒˆ-Û›·.2 ¢ÂÓ ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È, fï˜, ·Ú¿ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ÏÂ˘Ú¿ Ù˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋˜˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ ÈÛ¯‡Ô˜. ∏ NPR (∞Ó·-ıÂÒÚËÛË Ù˘ ¶˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ £¤Û˘)Ù˘ ÚÔÛʤÚÂÈ ÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜, ˆ˜ ·-ÚÈÔ ÏÂÔÓ¤ÎÙËÌ·, ÙËÓ «Â˘ÂÏÈÍ›·»Ë ÔÔ›· ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ˆ˜ ÌfiÓÈ-ÌË ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÛÙȘ Ӥ˜ ·ÂÈ-Ϥ˜ Î·È ˆ˜ ·ÓÙÈÛÙÚ„ÈÌfiÙËÙ·.∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›Ô ÛËÌÂ›Ô Â›Ó·ÈÚÈ˙Èο Ó¤Ô: ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ Ë «Ó¤·ı¤ÛË» ÂÈÙÚ¤ÂÈ ·‡ÍËÛË Ù˘ È-Û¯‡Ô˜ ÔÏfiÎÏËÚÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ Ê¿ÛÌ·ÙÔ˜ÙˆÓ ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ fiÏˆÓ Î·È Â·-Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÙˆÓ ‰ÔÎÈÌÒÓ, Ì ÚÔıÂ-ÛÌ›· ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÌËÓÒÓ. ∂Î ÙˆÓÚÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ, Ë NPR (∞Ó·ıÂÒÚËÛËÙ˘ ¶˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ £¤Û˘) ÚԂϤ-ÂÈ ÙËÓ ·Ó·Û‡ÓıÂÛË ÙˆÓ ÔÌ¿‰ˆÓÙˆÓ ÂÚ¢ÓËÙÒÓ, Ô˘ ›¯·Ó ‰È·-Ï˘ı› ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ ·fiÊ·ÛË Ô˘ ›-¯Â ÏËÊı› ÙÔ 1992 ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·‡ÛËÙˆÓ ÂÚ¢ÓÒÓ ÁÈ· Ó¤· fiÏ·, ηÈÙËÓ Â·Ó·ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ›· ÙˆÓ ÌÔÓ¿-‰ˆÓ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹˜. ÕÏψÛÙÂ, ËÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔṲ̂ÓË ¯Ú‹ÛË ˘ÚËÓÈ-ÎÒÓ fiÏˆÓ ‹Ù·Ó ·Ô‰ÂÎÙ‹ ÂÎÙˆÓ ÚÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ «Û ¿ÌÂÛ˜, ÂÓ-‰Â¯fiÌÂÓ˜ ‹ ·Úfi‚ÏÂÙ˜ ÂÚÈ-ÛÙ¿ÛÂȘ» ÛÙȘ Ôԛ˜ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡-Û·Ó Ó· ·Ó·ÌÂȯıÔ‡Ó ¯ÒÚ˜, fi-ˆ˜ «Ë µfiÚÂÈ· ∫ÔÚ¤·, ÙÔ πÚ¿Î,

ÙÔ πÚ¿Ó, Ë ™˘Ú›· Î·È Ë §È‚‡Ë».3

ÃÒÚ˜, ÔÈ Ôԛ˜ Ì·›ÓÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ›‰È· ηÙËÁÔÚ›·, ÌÔÏÔÓfiÙÈ ¯·Ú·-ÎÙËÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·È ·fi Ôχ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈ-Τ˜ ÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ Û˘Óı‹Î˜ ηÈÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈΤ˜ ı¤ÛÂȘ, ÁÈ·Ù› «fiϘ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›˙Ô˘Ó ‹ ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡Ó ÙÚÔ-ÌÔÎÚ¿Ù˜» Î·È fiϘ «Â›Ó·È ‰Ú·-ÛÙ‹ÚȘ ÛÙËÓ ·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË ‹ ÛÙËÓηٷÛ΢‹ fiÏˆÓ Ì·˙È΋˜ ηٷ-ÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜». ∞˘Ùfi ÙÔ ‰fiÁÌ· ¯ÚËÛÈ-ÌÔÔ›ËÛ˘ ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ fiψÓÔ˘ ÛÎÈ·ÁÚ·ÊÂ›Ù·È ÛÙËÓ NPR(∞Ó·ıÂÒÚËÛË Ù˘ ¶˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ £¤-Û˘) ‰ÂÓ ·ÔÙÂÏ› ÓˆÙÂÚÈÛÌfiÛÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· Ù˘ ·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋˜ ·ÌÂ-ÚÈηÓÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜. ¶ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È,Ì¿ÏÏÔÓ, ÁÈ· ·ÏÈÓfiÚıˆÛË. ªÂÌ›· ÚÔÛ·ÚÌÔṲ̂ÓË ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÛÙÔÛËÌÂÚÈÓfi ‰ÈÂıÓ¤˜ Ï·›ÛÈÔ, ·˘ÙfiÙÔ ‰fiÁÌ· ÛËÌ·‰Â‡ÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÈ-ÛÙÚÔÊ‹ ÛÙË ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋ Ù˘«ÎÏÈÌ·ÎÔ‡ÌÂÓ˘ ·¿ÓÙËÛ˘»ÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ‰ËÌÈÔ‡ÚÁËÛ·Ó ÔÈ ·ÌÂ-ÚÈηÓÔ› Èı‡ÓÔÓÙ˜, ÛÙȘ ·Ú¯¤˜Ù˘ ‰ÂηÂÙ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ‘60. ™ÙËÓ ÚÔ-ÔÙÈ΋ Û‡ÁÎÚÔ˘Û˘, Ë ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔ-Ô›ËÛË ÔÏfiÎÏËÚÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ Ê¿ÛÌ·-ÙÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓˆÓ Ù·ÎÙÈÎÒÓ ˘-ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ fiÏˆÓ Â›¯Â ı¤ÛË, ÙfiÙÂ,ˆ˜ ÂÓ›Û¯˘ÛË, ˆ˜ Û˘Ìϋڈ̷ ‹ˆ˜ ˘ÔηٿÛÙ·ÙÔ Û˘Ì‚·ÙÈÎÒÓ fi-ψÓ, ·Ó¿ÏÔÁ· Ì ÙËÓ ÂͤÏÈÍËÙˆÓ ÂȯÂÈÚ‹ÛÂˆÓ Î·È ÙË Û˘ÌÂ-ÚÈÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘ ·ÓÙÈ¿ÏÔ˘. ∆Ô ·Ô-Ù¤ÏÂÛÌ·, fiˆ˜ ÁÓˆÚ›˙Ô˘ÌÂ, ˘-‹ÚÍÂ Ë ·Ú¿ÏÏËÏË ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘ fiÏˆÓ ÛÙ· ·-Ó·ÙÔÏÈο, fiˆ˜ Î·È ÛÙ· ‰˘ÙÈοÙ˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ Ë›ÚÔ˘, οÙÈÔ˘ ˘ÔÛ¯fiÙ·Ó ÛÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË Ó·ÙËÓ Î¿ÓÂÈ, ·Ó·fiÊ¢ÎÙ·, ‰›ÔÌ·¯ÒÓ, ÙfiÛÔ ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ, fiÛÔ Î·ÈÛ˘Ì‚·ÙÈÎÒÓ, Û ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ÔϤ-ÌÔ˘. ∂Λ ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È Ë Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈ-΋ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¿ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙËÓ ÂÔ¯‹Ù˘ «ÎÏÈÌ·ÎÔ‡ÌÂÓ˘ ·¿ÓÙË-Û˘» Î·È ÛÙÔ ÛËÌÂÚÈÓfi ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ-Îfi Ï·›ÛÈÔ. ∏ ÂӉ¯fiÌÂÓË ¯Ú‹ÛË

Page 27: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏ 25

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ fiÏˆÓ Â›Ó·È ÙÔ ÂÚÁ·-ÏÂ›Ô Ù˘ «ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋˜ ‰Ú¿Û˘»Ô˘ ı· ·ÔÊ·Û›ÛÔ˘Ó ÔÈ ∏ӈ̤-Ó˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙ›˜ ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ· Û ÎÚ¿ÙË -‹, ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚ·, Û ¯ıÚÔ‡˜- Ô˘‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ‹ ‰ÂÓ ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó fiÏ··˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘ ‹ ‚Ú›ÛÎÔÓÙ·ÈÛÙË ‰È·‰Èηۛ· Ó· Ù· ·ÔÎÙ‹-ÛÔ˘Ó. øÛÙfiÛÔ, Û‡Ìʈӷ Î·È ÌÂÙÔÓ Î·ıËÁËÙ‹ £. ∫Ô˘ÏÔ˘Ì‹,«Ó· ÂȯÂÈÚ›˜ Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›-ÛÂȘ ÙȘ ·Û‡ÌÌÂÙÚ˜ ·ÂÈϤ˜ Ì¢ÚËÓÈο, Â›Ó·È Û·Ó Ó· ı¤ÏÂȘ Ó·ÚÔÛٷ٤„ÂȘ ÙÔ Ì¿ÁÔ˘Ïfi ÛÔ˘·fi ÙÔ ÙÛ›ÌËÌ· ÎÔ˘ÓÔ˘ÈÔ‡¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒÓÙ·˜ ‰˘Ó·Ì›ÙË».4

∆Ô Û¯¤‰ÈÔ ·ÓÙÈ‚·ÏÏÈÛÙÈÎÔ‡Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ NationalMissile Defence, (NMD)

∏·Ó·‚¿ıÌÈÛË ÙˆÓ «·Ì˘ÓÙÈ-ÎÒÓ ÈηÓÔًوӻ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞·ÔÙÂÏ› ¤Ó·Ó ·fi ÙÔ˘˜

‚·ÛÈÎÔ‡˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜ ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˜. «∏ ÚÔ-ÛÙ·Û›· Ù˘ ∞ÌÂÚÈ΋˜ ı· Â›Ó·È ÌÈ·ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ÚÔÙÂÚ·ÈfiÙËÙ· ÛÙÔÓ·ÈÒÓ· Ô˘ ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È», fiˆ˜ Û·-ÊÒ˜ ‰È·Ù‡ˆÛÂ Ô ªÔ˘˜, οÙÈÔ˘ Û˘Ó¿ÁÂÙ·È, ηٿ ÙË ÁÓÒÌËÙÔ˘, ÙËÓ ·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË «fiÛÔ Â›Ó·È‰˘Ó·Ùfi» ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ NMD.∞Ó ÈÛÙ¤„Ô˘Ì ÙÔÓ ÔÏÈÙÈÎfi Ïfi-ÁÔ Ô˘ ÂÎʤÚÂÙ·È, ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ Û‡-ÛÙËÌ· ˘ÔÙ›ıÂÙ·È fiÙÈ ı· ÚÔÛÙ·-Ù‡ÂÈ ÙÔ ÂıÓÈÎfi ¤‰·ÊÔ˜ ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ·ÛÙ· «ÎÚ¿ÙË-·Ú›Â˜», ‰ËÏ·‰‹ Â-Ó¿ÓÙÈ· ÛÙ· ÎÚ¿ÙË Ì ·Ú¿ÏÔ-ÁÔ˘˜ ËÁ¤Ù˜ Ô˘ ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ‚·Ï-ÏÈÛÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ˘Ú·‡ÏÔ˘˜, fiˆ˜ ˵fiÚÂÈ· ∫ÔÚ¤· ‹ ÙÔ πÚ¿Ó. £· Úfi-ÎÂÈÙ·È ·ÏÒ˜ ÁÈ· ÌÈ· Û˘ÓÂÙ‹ Î·È·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋ ·ÓÙ›‰Ú·ÛË ÙˆÓ ∏ӈ̤-ÓˆÓ ¶ÔÏÈÙÂÈÒÓ ·¤Ó·ÓÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ·-Úfi‚ÏÂÙË Û˘ÌÂÚÈÊÔÚ¿ ÙˆÓ¿ÏψÓ. ŸÌˆ˜, ÌÈ· ÚÔÛÂÎÙÈ΋ ·-Ó¿ÁÓˆÛË ÙˆÓ Â›ÛËÌˆÓ ‰È·ÎËÚ‡-ÍÂˆÓ ÂÌÊ·Ó›˙ÂÈ ÙÔ ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ·

NMD ˆ˜ ÙÔ ·ÔÎÔڇʈ̷ ÌÈ·˜ÂÓÂÚÁËÙÈ΋˜ Î·È ÂÈıÂÙÈ΋˜ ÛÙÚ·-ÙËÁÈ΋˜. ∏ ÂÁηٿÛÙ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘ ı·Â¤ÙÚ ے ¤Ó· ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎfi ·ÌÂ-ÚÈηÓfi Úfi‰ÚÔ, Ì ÙËÓ ÂÍÔ˘‰Â-Ù¤ÚˆÛË ÙˆÓ Â¯ıÚÈÎÒÓ ˘Ú·‡ÏˆÓÎ·È ÙËÓ ··ÏÏ·Á‹ ÙÔ˘ ·fi ÙÔÓηٷӷÁηÛÌfi Ù˘ ·ÔÙÚÔ‹˜,Ó· ÂÈÙÂı› ÛÙ· «ÎÚ¿ÙË-·Ú›Â˜»¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· ÎÈÓ‰˘Ó‡ÂÈ ·fi ·ÓÙ›ÔÈ-Ó· ‚·ÏÏÈÛÙÈÎÒÓ ˘Ú·‡ÏˆÓ Ô˘ı· ‰È·ı¤ÙÔ˘Ó ˘ÚËÓÈΤ˜ ÎÂʷϤ˜‹ ¿ÏϘ. ∞˘Ùfi ‰ÂÓ Ï¤ÁÂÙ·È ÍÂο-ı·Ú·, Ô‡Ù ·ÂÚ›ÊÚ·ÛÙ·, ·ÏÏ¿Û˘Ó¿ÁÂÙ·È, ȉȷ›ÙÂÚ· ·fi ÙȘ ‰È·-ÎËÚ‡ÍÂȘ ÙÔ˘ ƒ¿ÌÛÊÂÏÓÙ. ™‡Ì-ʈӷ Ì ٷ ÛËÌÂÚÈÓ¿ ‰Â‰Ô̤ӷ,Ë ÂÁηٿÛÙ·ÛË Ù˘ ·ÓÙÈ˘Ú·˘ÏÈ-΋˜ ·Û›‰·˜ ·fi ÙȘ ∏¶∞ ıˆ-ÚÂ›Ù·È Ï¤ÔÓ ·Ó·fiÊ¢ÎÙË. ª¿-ÏÈÛÙ·, ÙÔ ÂÓ ÏfiÁˆ Û‡ÌÏÂÁÌ·,ÁÓˆÛÙfi ˆ˜ «¶fiÏÂÌÔ˜ ÙˆÓ∞ÛÙÚˆÓ», ηÏÂ›Ù·È Ó· ‰È·‰Ú·Ì·-Ù›ÛÂÈ Â˘Ú‡ÙÂÚÔ ÚfiÏÔ. ∏ ·ÓÙÈ˘-Ú·˘ÏÈ΋ ·Û›‰· ı· ·ÔÙÂϤÛÂÈÌ¿ÏÏÔÓ ÙËÓ ·ÙÌÔÌ˯·Ó‹ Ù˘ Ó¤-·˜ ÂıÓÈ΋˜ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ·˜ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞.™Â ·˘Ùfi ÙÔ Û˘Ì¤Ú·ÛÌ· ı· ÌÔ-ÚÔ‡Û ηÓ›˜ Ó· ηٷϋÍÂÈ, ÎÚ›-ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ·ÊÂÓfi˜ ·fi Ù· ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ-ο ÂÌfi‰È· Ô˘ ÂӉ¯Ô̤ӈ˜ Ó··ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÂÈ Ë Ó¤· ΢‚¤ÚÓËÛËÎ·È ·ÊÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ ·fi ÙËÓ ·Û¿ÊÂÈ·Ù˘ ‰Ëψ̤Ó˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋˜ÚÔÔÙÈ΋˜ ÙÔ˘ ÂÈÙÂÏ›ԢªÔ˘˜. √ ·ÒÙÂÚÔ˜ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi˜ÛÎÔfi˜ (ÙÔ˘Ï¿¯ÈÛÙÔÓ fiÛÔÓ ·ÊÔ-Ú¿ ÙËÓ ·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋ ÙÔ˘ÌÔÚÊ‹) Ù˘ ΢‚¤ÚÓËÛ˘ ªÔ˘˜Â›Ó·È ÁÂÓÈÎfiÙÂÚ· Ô ÂÎÛ˘Á¯ÚÔÓÈ-ÛÌfi˜ ÙˆÓ ÂÓfiÏˆÓ ‰˘Ó¿ÌˆÓ, È-ηÓfi˜ Ó· ·ÓÙÂÂͤÏıÂÈ ÛÙȘ ÚÔ-ÎÏ‹ÛÂȘ ÙÔ˘ 21Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·. ™Â ·˘Ù‹ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË, Ô Î. ªÔ˘˜ ı··ÓÙȷϤ„ÂÈ ÚÒÙÈÛÙ· Ì «ÂÛˆ-ÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡˜ ¯ıÚÔ‡˜»: ÙË Êı›ÓÔ˘Û·‚ÈÔÌ˯·ÓÈ΋ ‚¿ÛË Ô˘ ·Ó·˙ËÙ›·Ì˘ÓÙÈο «ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù·-¯ÚËÌ·-ÙÔ‰ÔÙ‹ÛÂȘ», ÙÔÓ ·ÎÚ·›Ô ·ÓÙ·-

ÁˆÓÈÛÌfi ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙ· ÙÚ›· fiÏ·ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ˘Ê·Ú·Á‹ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚˆÓÎÔÓ‰˘Ï›ˆÓ, ÙË ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰fiÙËÛËÂÏ·ÙÂÈ·ÎÒÓ ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ ·-fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÓÔÌÔı¤Ù˜.øÛÙfiÛÔ, ÔÈÂȉÈÎÔ› ÂÎÏ‹ÛÛÔÓÙ·È ·fi ÙȘ Â-ÈÙÒÛÂȘ Ô˘ ı· ÂÈʤÚÂÈ Ë ·-ÓÙÈ˘Ú·˘ÏÈ΋ ·Û›‰·. ∏ ·Ó¿Ù˘-ÍË ·˘Ù‹˜ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û ӷ Ô‰ËÁ‹-ÛÂÈ Û ¤Ó· Ó¤Ô Î˘ÓËÁËÙfi ÙˆÓ Â-ÍÔÏÈÛÌÒÓ ÂӉ¯Ô̤ӈ˜ Ì Ù˃ˆÛ›·, Î·È ÚÔ·ÓÙfi˜ Ì ÙËÓ ∫›-Ó·, „‡¯Ú·ÓÛË ÙˆÓ Û¯¤ÛÂˆÓ ÌÂÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÌÌ¿¯Ô˘˜ Ù˘ √˘¿ÛÈ-ÁÎÙÔÓ, Î.Ï.. «Œ¯ÔÓÙ·˜ ›Û˘ ˘-fi„Ë ÙÔ ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈÔ ÎfiÛÙÔ˜ ÂÓfi˜·ÙÂÏÔ‡˜ Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ηıÒ˜ ηÈÙȘ ·ÚÓËÙÈΤ˜ Û˘Ó¤ÂȘ ÛÙË ‰ÈÂ-ıÓ‹ ·Ú¤Ó·, ÔÈÔ ÙÔ fiÊÂÏÔ˜ Ù˘·ÓÙÈ˘Ú·˘ÏÈ΋˜ ·Û›‰·˜ ÁÈ· ÙËÓÂıÓÈ΋ ·ÛÊ¿ÏÂÈ· ÙˆÓ ∏ӈ̤ӈӶÔÏÈÙÂÈÒÓ ;», ·ÔÚÔ‡Ó ÔÈ ›‰ÈÔÈ ·-Ó·Ï˘Ù¤˜. ª‹ˆ˜ fï˜ Ë ·ÓÙÈ˘-Ú·˘ÏÈ΋ ·Û›‰· ·ÔÙÂÏ› ÂÚÁ·-ÏÂ›Ô ÛÙËÓ ˘ËÚÂÛ›· ¿ÏÏˆÓ ÛÎÔ-ÒÓ; °È· ÙÔÓ ∆˙fi˙ÂÊ ∞›ÈÛÈ, Ù¤ˆ˜‰ÈÔÈÎËÙ‹ ÙÔ˘ U.S. SpaceCommand, Ô ·ÒÙÂÚÔ˜ ÛÎÔfi˜ÙˆÓ ·ÓÙÈ˘Ú·˘ÏÈÎÒÓ ÔÏÈÎÒÓÛ˘ÛÙËÌ¿ÙˆÓ Â›Ó·È Ë Î·Ù¿ÎÙËÛËÙÔ˘ ‰È·ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜. 5 ¶ÔÈ¿ ·ÂÈÏ‹‰È·ÙÚ¤¯Ô˘Ó fï˜ ÔÈ ∏¶∞ ÛÙԉȿÛÙËÌ·, ÙË ÛÙÈÁÌ‹ Ô˘ Ë √˘¿-ÛÈÁÎÙÔÓ (Ì·˙› Ì ÙÔ πÛÚ·‹Ï) ·Ú-ÓÂ›Ù·È Ì ÂÈÌÔÓ‹, Û ‰ÈÂıÓ‹ Êfi-Ú·, ÙËÓ ˘ÈÔı¤ÙËÛË Ì¤ÙÚˆÓ ÁÈ· ÙËÌË ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈÎÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘ ‰È·-ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜; ™ÙÔ ÛËÌÂ›Ô ·˘Ùfi ο-ÔÈÔÈ ·Ó·Ï˘Ù¤˜, ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙÔÈ Ì¤¯ÚÈÛÙÈÁÌ‹˜, ıˆÚÔ‡Ó fiÙÈ ÛȈËÚfi˜ÛÎÔfi˜ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞ Â›Ó·È Ë ‰È‡-Ú˘ÓÛË ÙÔ˘ «Ù¯ÓÔÏÔÁÈÎÔ‡ ¯¿-ÛÌ·ÙÔ˜» (“technological gap”) ÌÂÂӉ¯fiÌÂÓÔ˘˜ ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈÎÔ‡˜ «Â-¯ıÚÔ‡˜». ∆·˘Ùfi¯ÚÔÓ·, Ë √˘¿ÛÈ-ÁÎÙÔÓ ·ÚÓÂ›Ù·È Ó· Û˘˙ËÙ‹ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ·ÔÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈÎÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘ ¢È·-ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÛÙÔ Ï·›ÛÈÔ Ù˘ ‰È¿-Û΄˘ ÙÔ˘ √∏∂ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ·ÊÔ-

Page 28: European Expression - Issue 48

26 ∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÏÈÛÌfi, Ë ÔÔ›· ¤¯ÂÈ ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ·˘-Ùfi ÙÔÓ ÙÂÏÈÎfi ÛÙfi¯Ô, ÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓËÛ ·ÓÙ›ıÂÛË Ì ÙË ƒˆÛ›·, ÙËÓ ∫›-Ó· Î·È ÔÏÏÔ‡˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ Û˘ÌÌ¿-¯Ô˘˜ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞ Î·È Ô‰ËÁÒÓÙ·˜ Û·‰È¤ÍÔ‰Ô ÙË ‰È¿Û΄Ë. «∆· ÂÚˆ-Ù‹Ì·Ù· Ô˘ ·ÊÔÚÔ‡Ó ÙÔ ¤Íˆ-·-ÙÌÔÛÊ·ÈÚÈÎfi ¢È¿ÛÙËÌ· ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·ÈÒÚÈÌ· ÁÈ· Ó· ·ÔÙÂϤÛÔ˘Ó ·ÓÙÈ-ΛÌÂÓÔ ‰È·Ú·ÁÌ¿Ù¢Û˘ ÛÙÔÏ·›ÛÈÔ Ù˘ ‰È¿Û΄˘ ÁÈ· ÙÔÓ ·-ÊÔÏÈÛÌfi», ‰‹ÏˆÛÂ Ô ∞ÌÂÚÈη-Ófi˜ ÂÎÚfiÛˆÔ˜, ڤۂ˘ ƒfi-ÌÂÚÙ °ÎÚ¤È, ÙÔÓ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ fï˜ fi-ÙÈ Ë ¯ÒÚ· ÙÔ˘ ÂÍ·ÎÔÏÔ˘ı› Ó·‰ÂÛ̇ÂÙ·È ·fi ÙË Û˘Óı‹ÎË ÙÔ˘1967 ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·ÔÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈÎÔÔ›-ËÛË ÙÔ˘ ¢È·ÛÙ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜.6

∆Ô ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˘ ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘

∂Ó· ‚·ÛÈÎfi ˘ÏÒÓ· ÙÔ˘ Ó¤-Ô˘ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÔ‡ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ-ÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˜, fiˆ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ

·Ó·ÊÂÚı› Î·È ·Ú·¿Óˆ, ·Ô-ÙÂÏ› Ë ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë «ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÒÓ‰Ú¿Ûˆӻ ÂÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ Ù·-Ú·ÍÈÒÓ. ∆Ô Ó¤Ô ‰fiÁÌ· ·ÚÔ˘Û›·-ÛÂ Ô ›‰ÈÔ˜ Ô ·ÌÂÚÈηÓfi˜ ÚfiÂ-‰ÚÔ˜ ∆˙ÔÚÙ˙ ªÔ˘˜, ÌÈÏÒÓÙ·˜ÛÙË ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈ΋ ·Î·‰ËÌ›· ÙÔ˘√˘¤ÛÙ ¶fiÈÓÙ, ÙËÓ 1Ë πÔ˘Ó›Ô˘2002, ·fi ÙÔ ÔÔ›Ô ı· ÂÌÓ¤ÂÙ·ÈÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜ Ë Î˘‚¤ÚÓËÛ‹ ÙÔ˘.7

™‡Ìʈӷ Ì ÙÔÓ ªÔ˘˜, ÔÈ ·ÂÈ-Ϥ˜ Ô˘ ı· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›ÛÂÈ Ë ∞ÌÂ-ÚÈ΋ ÚÔ¤Ú¯ÔÓÙ·È ·fi ‰ÈÂıÓ›˜ÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈΤ˜ ÔÌ¿‰Â˜ Î·È ·fiÎÚ¿ÙË Ô˘ ÙȘ ·Ó¤¯ÔÓÙ·È, ÙȘ ÊÈ-ÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡Ó ‹ ÙȘ ˘ÔÛÙËÚ›˙Ô˘Ó,·ÏÏ¿, ›Û˘, Î·È ·fi ·˘ÙÔ‡˜Ô˘ η٤¯Ô˘Ó fiÏ· Ì·˙È΋˜ η-Ù·ÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜ ‹ ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È Ó· Ù· ·-ÔÎÙ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ‹ ÂÙÔÈÌ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È Ó· ٷηٷÛ΢¿ÛÔ˘Ó. ∂Âȉ‹ ·˘Ù¤˜ ÔÈ·ÂÈϤ˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·ÏÏ¿ÍÂÈ ÚԤϢ-ÛË Î·È ¯·Ú·ÎÙ‹Ú·, Ë ·¿ÓÙËÛËı· Ú¤ÂÈ, ›Û˘, Ó· ·ÏÏ¿ÍÂÈ

Ï‹Úˆ˜. √ Úfi‰ÚÔ˜ ‰È·‚‚·›ˆ-Û fiÙÈ ÔÈ ∏ӈ̤Ó˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙ›˜‰ÂÓ ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È Ó· ‰Â¯ıÔ‡Ó, Ì η-Ó¤Ó· ÙÚfiÔ, fiÙÈ ÔÈ Ó¤ÔÈ Â¯ıÚÔ›ÙÔ˘˜ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ηٷʤÚÔ˘ÓÂÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÙÔ˘˜ ‹ ÂÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÙˆÓÛ˘ÌÌ¿¯ˆÓ ÙÔ˘˜ Ï‹ÁÌ·Ù· ·Ó¿-ÏÔÁ· Ì ·˘Ù¿ Ù˘ 11˘ ™ÂÙÂÌ-‚Ú›Ô˘, Ô‡Ù ӷ ·Ú·‰Â¯ÙÔ‡Ó fiÙÈı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó Ó· ÂÈÙÂıÔ‡Ó, fi-ˆ˜ ÛÙÔ ·ÚÂÏıfiÓ, Û ÚÂۂ›-˜, Ó·˘ÙÈΤ˜ ÌÔÓ¿‰Â˜ ‹ ·ÌÂÚÈη-ÓÈΤ˜ ‚¿ÛÂȘ. ∞Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛÂ, ÏÔÈ-fiÓ, fiÙÈ Ë ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋ Ù˘ √˘¿ÛÈ-

ÁÎÙÔÓ ı· ·Ô‚ϤÂÈ ÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜ÛÙÔ Ó· ÂÌÔ‰›ÛÂÈ Ó· ˘ÏÔÔÈË-ıÔ‡Ó Ù¤ÙÔȘ ·ÂÈϤ˜, ·Ó·Ï·Ì‚¿-ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ÂÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ ÙˆÓ ‰˘ÓËÙÈÎÒÓ¯ıÚÒÓ Ù˘ «ÚÔÏËÙÈΤ˜ ‰Ú¿-ÛÂȘ» (preventive actions).8 √È∏¶∞ ı· Â›Ó·È ¤ÙÔÈ̘ ÁÈ· ‰Ú¿ÛË·ÎfiÌ· Î·È ÛÙÔ ¤‰·ÊÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ Â-¯ıÚÔ‡ fiˆ˜ ÙfiÓÈÛÂ Î·È Ô ·ÌÂÚÈ-ηÓfi˜ Úfi‰ÚÔ˜: «Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ʤ-ÚÔ˘Ì ÙË Ì¿¯Ë ÛÙÔ ¤‰·ÊÔ˜ ÙÔ˘Â¯ıÚÔ‡, Ó· ·ÔÛ˘ÓÙÔÓ›ÛÔ˘Ì ٷۯ¤‰È¿ ÙÔ˘ Î·È Ó· ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›-ÛÔ˘Ì ÙȘ ¯ÂÈÚfiÙÂÚ˜ ·ÂÈϤ˜ÚÈÓ ÂÌÊ·ÓÈÛÙÔ‡Ó». √ G.W.Bush› ·ÎfiÌ· fiÙÈ Ô fiÏÂÌÔ˜ ηٿÙ˘ ÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·Ù›·˜ ÌÔÚ› Ó· ʤ-ÚÂÈ ÌÈ· ÈÛÙÔÚÈ΋ ·ÏÏ·Á‹ ÛÙȘ ‰ÈÂ-ıÓ›˜ Û¯¤ÛÂȘ Ì ÙËÓ ·ÓÙÈηٿ-ÛÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ‚›·ÈÔ˘ ·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÌÔ‡·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· ÛÙȘ «ÌÂÁ¿Ï˜ ‰˘Ó¿-ÌÂȘ» ·fi ÙË Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÛÙËÓ ·-ÓÙÈÌÂÙÒÈÛË ÂÓfi˜ ÎÔÈÓÔ‡ Â-

¯ıÚÔ‡. øÛÙfiÛÔ, ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û ӷÛËÌÂȈı› ÛÙÔ ÛËÌÂ›Ô ·˘Ùfi fiÙÈ Ë·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ‰ÂÓ ·Ô-ÙÂÏ› ·ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈο ·ÓÙ›‰Ú·ÛËÛÙȘ ÊÔ‚ÂÚ¤˜ ÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈΤ˜ ÂÈ-ı¤ÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ˘˜ ‰›‰˘ÌÔ˘˜ ‡ÚÁÔ˘˜.™ÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ·, ·fi ÙÔÓηÈÚfi Ô˘ ·Ó¤Ï·‚ ٷ ηı‹ÎÔÓÙ¿ÙÔ˘ Ô ªÔ˘˜, ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÔÏÔÎÏËÚˆ-ı› ÙÚÂȘ Ô˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈΤ˜ ÌÂϤÙ˜ ·-fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÂȉÈÎÔ‡˜ ÙÔ˘ ¶ÂÓÙ·ÁÒ-ÓÔ˘: Ë Ì›· ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÙȘ Û˘Ó-ı‹Î˜ ˙ˆ‹˜ ÙÔ˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈÎÔ‡ÚÔÛˆÈÎÔ‡, ·ÏÏ¿ ÔÈ ‰‡Ô ¿ÏϘ,Ë Nuclear Posture Review (∞Ó·-ıÂÒÚËÛË Ù˘ ¶˘ÚËÓÈ΋˜ £¤Û˘),Ô˘ ·Ú·‰fiıËΠÙÔÓ π·ÓÔ˘¿ÚÈÔÙÔ˘ 2002, Î·È Ë QuadrennialDefence Review (∆ÂÙÚ·ÂÙ‹˜∞Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋ ∞Ó·ÛÎfiËÛË) ¤¯Ô˘ÓÔ˘ÛÈ·ÛÙÈ΋ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋ ÛËÌ·Û›·.√ ÏfiÁÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ ÚÔ¤‰ÚÔ˘ ·ÔÎ¿Ï˘-„ ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È ·Ó‹ÁÁÂÈ-Ï ÙËÓ ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÙÔ˘˜. ª¤¯ÚÈÙÒÚ·, ÔÈ ∏ӈ̤Ó˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙ›˜ ‚Â-‚·›ˆÓ·Ó -¤ÛÙˆ ÎÈ ·Ó Ë Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈ-ÎfiÙËÙ· ‰ÂÓ ÙÔ ÂȂ‚·›ˆÓÂ- fiÙȉÂÓ ı· ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈ΋ ÈÛ¯‡, ·Ú¿ ÁÈ· Ó· ·-·ÓÙ‹ÛÔ˘Ó Û ÌÈ· ›ıÂÛË, Î·È fi-ÙÈ Ë ÚˆÙÔ‚Ô˘Ï›· ÙˆÓ ÔϤ̈ÓÛÙÔ˘˜ ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ ı· ÂÌϤÎÔÓÙ·Ó‚ÚÈÛÎfiÙ·Ó ¿ÓÙ· ÛÙ· ¯¤ÚÈ· ÙˆÓ¯ıÚÒÓ ÙÔ˘˜. ∏ ı¤ÛË ·˘Ù‹ ·›ÚÂ-Ù·È È·. √È ÛΤ„ÂȘ ·˘Ù¤˜ Û˘ÁÎÂ-ÓÙÚÒıËÎ·Ó ·fi ÙÔ ∂ıÓÈÎfi ™˘Ì-‚Ô‡ÏÈÔ ∞ÛÊ·Ï›·˜, οو ·fi ÙÔÁÂÓÈÎfi Ù›ÙÏÔ National SecurityStrategy (™ÙÚ·ÙËÁÈ΋ ∂ıÓÈ΋˜∞ÛÊ·Ï›·˜), Î·È ·Ó·ÁÁ¤ÏÏÔ˘ÓÚËÙ¿ ÙËÓ ÂÁηٿÏÂÈ„Ë ÙˆÓ ÚÔË-ÁÔ‡ÌÂÓˆÓ ‰ÔÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ Ù˘ «·Ô-ÙÚÔ‹˜» ‹ Ù˘ «Û˘ÁÎÚ¿ÙËÛ˘»,ÚÔÛ‰ÈÔÚ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÙÔ Ó¤Ô ‰fiÁÌ·Ì ÂÎÊÚ¿ÛÂȘ, fiˆ˜ «·Ì˘ÓÙÈ΋¤̂·ÛË», «ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋ ‰Ú¿-ÛË» ‹ «Â›ıÂÛË ÁÈ· ÚfiÏË„Ë Â-¯ıÚÈ΋˜ ›ıÂÛ˘». ∞fi ÙÔ‡‰Â

❝∏ Ó¤· ÌÔÚÊ‹ ÙˆÓ·ÂÈÏÒÓ Ô˘ÓÈÒıÔ˘Ó ÏÔÈfiÓ È·ÔÈ ∏¶∞ Ô‰‹ÁËÛ·ÓÛÙËÓ ÚÔÒıËÛËÌÈ·˜ Ó¤·˜·Ú¯ÈÙÂÎÙÔÓÈ΋˜ Ù˘·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈ΋˜¿Ì˘Ó·˜.

Page 29: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∫ ∞ π ∞ ª ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∞ ¡ π ∫ ∏ ∂ • ø ∆ ∂ ƒ π ∫ ∏ ¶ √ § π ∆ π ∫ ∏ 27

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Î·È ÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜, Ù›ıÂÙ·È ÏÔÈfiÓ ÙÔ Â-ÚÒÙËÌ·: ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ· Û ÔÈÔ‡˜ ·ÓÙÈ-¿ÏÔ˘˜ ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û·Ó ÔÈ ∏ӈ̤-Ó˜ ¶ÔÏÈÙ›˜ Ó· ÂÍ·ÔχÛÔ˘Ó«ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋ ‰Ú¿ÛË»; √È ∞ÌÂÚÈ-ηÓÔ› ˘Â‡ı˘ÓÔÈ Î·Ù¤‚·Ï·Ó οıÂÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· ÁÈ· Ó· Á›ÓÂÈ ÍÂοı·-ÚÔ fiÙÈ ‰ÂÓ ÂÚfiÎÂÈÙÔ ÁÈ· ÚÔÂ-ÙÔÈÌ·Û›· ÌÈ·˜ ÔÏÂÌÈ΋˜ ‰Ú¿Û˘·˘ÙÔ‡ ÙÔ˘ Ù‡Ô˘ ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ· ÛÙ˃ˆÛ›·, ·ÏÏ¿ Ô‡Ù ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ· ÛÙËÓ∫›Ó·.

√ «¿ÍÔÓ·˜ ÙÔ˘ ∫·ÎÔ‡»

∏·Ó¿Ù˘ÍË ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ÛÙÚ·-ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁ-Ì·ÙÔ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÏÔÈfiÓ Û˘ÁÎÂ-

ÎÚÈ̤ÓÔ˘˜ Â͈ÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡˜ ·Ô‰¤-ÎÙ˜. ¶ÔÈÔÈ, fï˜, Â›Ó·È ·˘ÙÔ›;∂Èۋ̈˜ Ë ·ÂÈÏ‹ ÚÔ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È·fi Ù· ·ÔηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓ· «∫Ú¿ÙË-¶·Ú›Â˜» («Rogue States»), fiˆ˜Ë µfiÚÂÈ· ∫ÔÚ¤·, ÙÔ πÚ¿Ó ‹ ÙÔ

πÚ¿Î. ∞˘Ù¤˜ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ÙȘ ¯ÒÚ˜-ÛÙfi¯Ô, ÂÓÒ Ë ·Ó¿Ù˘-ÍË ÙÔ˘ Ó¤Ô˘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ‡ ‰fiÁÌ·-ÙÔ˜ Û η̛· ÂÚ›ÙˆÛË ‰ÂÓ ·-ÊÔÚ¿ ÚÔÂÙÔÈÌ·Û›· ÔÏÂÌÈ΋˜‰Ú¿Û˘ ÂÓ¿ÓÙÈ· ÛÙË ∫›Ó· ‹ Ù˃ˆÛ›·. √È Â›ÛËÌÔÈ ÏfiÁÔÈ ÙˆÓ ·-ÌÂÚÈηÓÒÓ ·ÍȈ̷ÙÔ‡¯ˆÓ η-Ù·ÁÁ¤ÏÏÔ˘Ó ˆ˜ ¯ıÚÔ‡˜ Ù· ÎÚ¿-ÙË Ô˘ ·Ó¤¯ÔÓÙ·È, ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡Ó ‹‚ÔËıÔ‡Ó ÙȘ ÙÚÔÌÔÎÚ·ÙÈΤ˜ ÔÚ-Á·ÓÒÛÂȘ, ηıÒ˜ Î·È ·˘Ù¿ Ô˘ ¤-¯Ô˘Ó fiÏ· Ì·˙È΋˜ ηٷÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜‹ ÂÙÔÈÌ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È Ó· Ù· ηٷÛ΢¿-ÛÔ˘Ó ‹ Ó· Ù· ÚÔÌËı¢ÙÔ‡Ó. √ÈηÙËÁÔڛ˜ ·˘Ù¤˜ ·ÔηχÙÔ˘ÓÙË ı¤ÏËÛË ÙˆÓ ∏ÓˆÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¶ÔÏÈ-ÙÂÈÒÓ Ó· ˘ÂÚ·Û›ÛÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ Î·-ÙÂÛÙË̤ÓË ‰ÈÂıÓ‹ Ù¿ÍË, ¤ÙÛÈ fi-ˆ˜ ÙËÓ ·ÓÙÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ·È Î·È ¤-ÙÛÈ fiˆ˜ ·˘Ù‹ ·ÓÙ·ÔÎÚ›ÓÂÙ·ÈÛÙ· Û˘ÌʤÚÔÓÙ¿ ÙÔ˘˜. ∂ÎÙfi˜ÙˆÓ ÙÚÈÒÓ ¯ˆÚÒÓ Ô˘ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂ-Û·Ó ·Ú¯ÈÎÒ˜ ÙÔÓ «¿ÍÔÓ· ÙÔ˘ η-

ÎÔ‡», ÙÔ πÚ¿Î, ÙË µfiÚÂÈÔ ∫ÔÚ¤·Î·È ÙÔ πÚ¿Ó ‰ËÏ·‰‹, ÔÈ ∏¶∞ ÂÂ-ÎÙ›ÓÔ˘Ó ÙÔÓ ¿ÍÔÓ· ·˘Ùfi ηÙË-ÁÔÚÒÓÙ·˜ ÙË §È‚‡Ë, ÙË ™˘Ú›· ηÈÙËÓ ∫Ô‡‚· fiÙÈ ı¤ÏÔ˘Ó Ó· ·Ô-ÎÙ‹ÛÔ˘Ó fiÏ· Ì·˙È΋˜ ηٷ-ÛÙÚÔÊ‹˜ Î·È fiÙÈ Â˘ÓÔÔ‡Ó ÙË ‰È¿-‰ÔÛË Ù¤ÙÔÈˆÓ fiψÓ. ∆ÔÔıÂ-ÙÔ‡Ó ¤ÙÛÈ ÙȘ ÙÚÂȘ ¯ÒÚ˜ ÛÙÔÓÚÔı¿Ï·ÌÔ ÙÔ˘ ¿ÍÔÓ·, ¯·Ú·ÎÙË-Ú›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ Ù· ÙÚ›· ÎÚ¿ÙË «ÂÎÙfi˜ÓfiÌÔ˘». √ ηٿÏÔÁÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÎÚ·-ÙÒÓ Ô˘ Û¯ËÌ·Ù›˙Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ «¿ÍÔ-Ó· ÙÔ˘ ∫·ÎÔ‡» ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ÔÚÈÛÙÈ-Îfi˜, ·ÏÏ¿ ˘·ÈÓ›ÛÛÂÙ·È, ‹‰Ë, ÙËÓ¤ÎÙ·ÛË ÙˆÓ ·ÌÂÚÈηÓÈÎÒÓ ÛÙfi-¯ˆÓ. ∏ Ó¤· ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë ¤¯ÂÈ ÛËÌ·-ÓÙÈΤ˜ ÂÈÙÒÛÂȘ ÛÙÔ ‰fiÁÌ·¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔ›ËÛ˘ ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÎÒÓÛ˘ÛÙËÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ȉȷ›ÙÂÚ· ÙˆÓ ˘-ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ Î·È ÌÔÚ› Ó· ıˆÚËıÂ›Ë ··Ú¯‹ ÌÈ·˜ Ó¤·˜ ÂÔ¯‹˜ ÛÙÔÙÔ̤· Ù˘ Â͈ÙÂÚÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜Î·È ÙˆÓ ‰ÈÂıÓÒÓ Û¯¤ÛˆÓ. 9

ñ µ·Á¤Ó· ¡Ù., «£. ∫Ô˘ÏÔ˘Ì‹˜ ÁÈ· ¯Ú‹ÛË ˘ÚËÓÈÎÒÓ»,

∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›· 12/03/2002.

ñDe La Gorge P.M., «∏ ÂÈΛӉ˘ÓË ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘ ÚÔÏË-

ÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘», ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· «∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·», ·Ó·‰ËÌÔ-

Û›Â˘ÛË ·fi «Le Monde», 15/09/2002.

ñGraff J., “ What’s NATO for?”, in The Time Magazine, 25.

11. 2002.

ñKlaire M. ∆., «√ ÂÈÚ·ÛÌfi˜ Ù˘ ÌÔÓÔÌÂÚÔ‡˜ ‰Ú¿Û˘ ÁÈ·

ÙȘ ∏¶∞: √È ÙÚÂȘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ› ˘ÏÒÓ˜ Ù˘ √˘¿ÛÈÁÎÙÔÓ,

∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, ∞Ó·‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le Monde

12-08-2001

ñ ∫·Ó¤ÏÏÔ˜ £.°., «Ÿ¯È ÛÙËÓ ÔÌڤϷ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞», ∂Ï¢-

ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, 24/05/2001

ñ“Nuclear Posture Review”, ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ The Los

Angeles Times, 12 ª·ÚÙ›Ô˘ 2002.

ñ«√ ¿ÍÔÓ·˜ ÙÔ˘ ηÎÔ‡’ ÌÂÁ¿ÏˆÛÂ...», ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·,

08/05/2002.

ñPaul-Marie De La Gorge, «∏ ÂÈΛӉ˘ÓË ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘

ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘», ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·,∞Ó·-

‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le Monde, 15/09/2002.

ñ«¶ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋... ıÂڷ›· ªÔ˘˜», ∂§∂À£∂ƒ√∆À¶π∞,

03/06/2002.

1 µÏ. Klaire M. ∆., «√ ÂÈÚ·ÛÌfi˜ Ù˘ ÌÔÓÔÌÂÚÔ‡˜ ‰Ú¿-

Û˘ ÁÈ· ÙȘ ∏¶∞: √È ÙÚÂȘ ÛÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÔ› ˘ÏÒÓ˜ Ù˘ √˘¿ÛÈ-

ÁÎÙÔÓ, ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, ∞Ó·‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le

Monde 12-08-2001.

2 µÏ. De La Gorge P.M., «∏ ÂÈΛӉ˘ÓË ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘

ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘», ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·,∞Ó·-

‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le Monde, 15/09/2002.

3 µÏ. “Nuclear Posture Review”, ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ

The Los Angeles Times, 12 ª·ÚÙ›Ô˘ 2002.

4 µÏ µ·Á¤Ó· ¡Ù., «£. ∫Ô˘ÏÔ˘Ì‹˜ ÁÈ· ¯Ú‹ÛË ˘ÚËÓÈ-

ÎÒÓ», ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›· 12/03/2002.

5 www.eleytherotypia.gr ( √ÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·, 04/03/2001)

6 ‚Ï. ∫·Ó¤ÏÏÔ˜ £.°., «Ÿ¯È ÛÙËÓ ÔÌڤϷ ÙˆÓ ∏¶∞»,

∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·, 24/05/2001

7 µÏ. «¶ÚÔÏËÙÈ΋... ıÂڷ›· ªÔ˘˜», ∂§∂À£∂ƒ√-

∆À¶π∞, 03/06/2002.

8 µÏ. De La Gorge P.M., «∏ ÂÈΛӉ˘ÓË ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘

ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘», ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·,∞Ó·-

‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le Monde, 15/09/2002.

9 µÏ. Paul-Marie De La Gorge, «∏ ÂÈΛӉ˘ÓË ·ÓÙ›ÏË„Ë

ÙÔ˘ ÚÔÏËÙÈÎÔ‡ ÔϤÌÔ˘», ∂ÊËÌÂÚ›‰· ∂Ï¢ıÂÚÔÙ˘›·,

∞Ó·‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ·fi Le Monde, 15/09/2002.

¶ËÁ¤˜

Page 30: European Expression - Issue 48

28

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂

The case arose as a resultof the Italian Govern-ment’s failure to imple-ment the Directive 80/987,

on the Protection of Employees, inthe event of their Employers’ In-solvency. This Directive providedthat the Member States shouldtake the measures necessary toguarantee the payment of the em-ployee’s claims resulting fromcontracts of employment in caseof insolvency [Art.3(1)]. Also, itprovided that the Member Stateswere allowed to lay down detailedrules, concerning the organisationand financing of the scheme-insti-tution bound to pay the arrears(Art.5). Italy took no steps to im-plement the Directive and in 1989the ECJ declared, in an Art.1691

proceeding, that Italy had failedto fulfil its obligations. When, in1991, the case came before theCourt, the Directive had still notbeen implemented. The plaintiffs- Mr. Francovich was owed LIT6,000,000 by his employer, whilstMr. Boniffaci and 33 other col-leagues of his were owed LIT256,000,000 - sued the State

and their former company. Ac-cordingly, the Italian Courtsasked ECJ, whether the Italian s-tate was liable to pay these sumsof money.

Thus, three separate issueswere raised by the ECJ. The firstwas whether this Directive was di-rectly effective, or not. Individualscould, in general terms, deriverights from directives against aMember States2, provided that

the directive is certain, preciseand unconditional. In our case, al-though the determination of thebeneficiaries of the guarantee andthe content of the right were un-conditional and precise enough tobe directly effective, the samewouldn’t apply to the identity ofthe guarantee institutions respon-sible for the payment, which stillremained matter of future solidifi-cation3. So the provisions of the

by Panos Lambridis,MSc in European Studies at London School Ôf Economics, PhD candidate,

University of Athens, International and European Studies

ΤHE «FRANCOVICH CASE»:

The ·djudication of the EuropeanCourt of Justice that changedthe route of the European Integration

The role of ECJ is significant.

Page 31: European Expression - Issue 48

29

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Directive could not be invoked di-rectly against the state, becauseunder the Directive it was not nec-essary that the State should beresponsible for payment.

The second question wasabout the very existence of theState’s liability as a matter of prin-ciple. The ECJ followed a reason-ing which is undoubtedly consis-tent with the Court case Law4:The EEC Treaty has created a le-gal system, which is integratedinto the legal systems of theMember States. The nationalCourts are bound to apply the EClaw. The subjects of that legalsystem are not only the MemberStates, but also their nationals, towhom are imposed burdens, aswell as rights. Furthermore, it isthe national courts task to enforcethe provisions of Community Lawin areas of their jurisdiction, sothat they could ensure the full ef-fectiveness of Community rulesand the protection of the rights,which they grant. This dual task isachieved by means of the ability ofindividuals to obtain redress,when their rights are infringed bya State’s breach of CommunityLaw5. This is important, when, asin this case, individuals cannot en-force their rights, in the absenceof prior action needed by the MS.Finally, in close relationship withthe concepts expressed previ-ously, it is declared by the ECJthat, according to the Art. 5 EEC6,the non contractual liability of theMember State to make good lossand damage caused to individualsas a result of a state’s breach ofCommunity law, is inherent in theTreaties7.

The third topic is the extent, orelse, the conditions for State liabili-ty. The Court held that the full ef-

fectiveness of the Community lawrequires that there should be aright of reparation, according theArt. 189(3) EEC8. And there arethree conditions that describe thenature of the breach of Communi-ty law. The first is that the resultrequired by the directive must in-clude the grant of rights to indi-viduals, the second is that thecontent of these rights should beidentifiable and determinable onthe basis of the provisions and,thirdly, the existence of a causallink between the breach of the S-tate’s obligation and the damagesuffered9. Therefore, the repara-tion of the state for the conse-quences of loss is based on na-tional laws on liability. In the ab-sence of Community legislation,the national legal orders shoulddefine the substantive and proce-dural conditions for reparations.And these should by no meansbe less favourable than thoserelating to similar domesticclaims or so framed as to make itimpossible to obtainreparation10.

The Significance of the “Fran-

covich Case”:The significance of this case

lays upon the innovation of thereasoning of the Court: Individualsare entitled to claim damagesfrom the State not basically be-cause of the breach of directly ef-fective provisions, but just due tothe primary failure of the State tocomply with its obligations. Itwould be easier to understand thejudgement, if we bear in mind thatthe Court’s fervent desire was tocircumvent the problem caused bythe absence of horizontal directeffect for directives11. The Mar-shal case had already ruled thatno further obligations should beplaced on private parties by indi-viduals. Consequently, eventhough the Court found that theprovisions of the Directive 80/987were not directly effective, this didnot prevent the Court from declar-ing the rights, contained in the di-rective, being protected throughan action in damages. It is allegedthat the Court could have easilyfound the provisions sufficientlyprecise for direct effects. And, it issubmitted that it didn’t do so, ow-

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂

The building of the ECJ.

Page 32: European Expression - Issue 48

30

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ing to its will to establish remediesindependent from the need toprove the direct effects12.

The Court implied that directand indirect effect and state re-sponsibility were not discreteends, but simple manifestations ofthe need for the rights to be pro-tected and, consequently, for thejudicial process to be effective13.The Advocate General held thatthe right of the individuals to relyon directly effective provisionsconstitutes only a minimum formof protection. Direct effect couldnot necessary ensure that indi-viduals would not suffer dam-age14. So, the principle of State’snon-contractual Liability is morelegitimate than the ones of directand indirect effect, since the pri-mary fault for non - compliancehas always lain with the state15.

On the other hand, if strict liabil-ity for an illegal act becomes thenorm, then the business of gov-ernment will become risky indeed,because the governments arefaced with massive applicationsfor reparations. These actions ofthe Court move it infallibly to anadministrative function, the alloca-tion of resources, function strictlyreserved for executive and legisla-ture. This undertaking implies anenormous expansion of the legalsystem and involves too great aconflict of interest16. The mostcounter-opinions are held by theanti-integrationists, who advocatethat a convergence of the rulesdoes not pay attention to the na-tional environments they wish tooperate and that the extra-petaltendencies of different societieswill leave the dichotomy betweenEC rights and national proceduresintact17.

∆he Implications of the Case

on the National Decision-Mak-ing Process:

The effects of this judgementfall hard on the Member States.The Francovich decision furnishesa weapon of considerable power,which can be used against govern-ments that have not implementeda directive within the relevant time.So, the pace of the implementationof the directives will probably beaccelerated, because the absenceof the full conditions for direct ef-fect need not preclude damages

claim. At practical level, breachesof EC law would be prevented anddirectives would be properly im-plemented. Individuals would feelmore motivated to bring actions tocourt. And the lacuna in judicialprotection between the limits of di-rect and indirect effect will be nar-rowed18.

There are also some implica-tions, concerning the M-S, notclearly discerned from the firstreading. Advocate General point-ed out that Community law mightimpose a duty on a member stateto construct a remedy, eitherwhere similar remedies to that be-ing claimed do not exist at the na-tional level, or where the remedyis not accessible at the nationallevel on the same conditions asthe applicant is in fact seeking. In

other words, in many cases, EC li-ability is imposed even where no li-ability for breach of an equivalentdomestic law exists19, whichmeans the creation of a whollynew type of remedy. And, usually,the Court and the Adv.Gen. usephrases of broad meaning, in or-der to make less conspicuous thatCommunity law is requiring aMember State to create a newremedy20. And that is how this canbe realised: If community law re-quires a Member State to providedamages action which is subject tovery different criteria from the onespreviously existed, then in realitythis state is being required to cre-ate a new remedy. In conclusion, ifthe Court does feel reticent anddoes not want to require explicitlynew remedies, it can achieve thesame result indirectly21.

It may be, also, observed thatthe States are subject in a morewide ranging liability than EC In-stitutions. Whereas an EC actdoes not incur liability on the Eu-ropean institutions, the implemen-tation of the act by the national s-tate might fall foul of the Fran-covich Judgement22. And, itcomes as an inference that the di-vergence of national legal sys-tems, on the conditions of liability,on the strict or fault based stan-dards and on the definition of the“fault”, will be in future under re-consideration23.

Finally, P. Craig characterisesthe reasoning of the ECJ as oneof the best examples of purposiveand teleological in nature judge-ments. I shall try to utter the de-duction that this “telos” (=aim) ofthe Court is to contribute further tothe very task of steering the Euro-pean “train” towards a more inte-grated future. The national gov-

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂

❝ I can hardly dis-agree with the inte-grationist efforts ofthe court against theinter-governmentalmachinations of thestates, since I standfor further politicalunification.

Page 33: European Expression - Issue 48

31

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂ernments were opposed to “an-other outrageous judgement” ofthe Court, because they are ableto distinguish its constitutional sig-nificance: there has been a sub-stantial boost of the protection ofindividual’s rights. And just wherefundamental rights are beingrecognised, there seems to bean increasing demand for a Eu-ropean constitution. Of course,a would-be European constitu-tion appears, from a certainpoint of view, as a threat to-wards a European federation. Ican hardly disagree with the in-tegrationist efforts of the courtagainst the inter-governmentalmachinations of the states, s-ince I stand for further politicalunification.

On the other hand, it seems tome that only the elites have ac-cess to the European Legal Order,for not many have the funds andthe time needed to invoke theirrights in front of the ECJ. Evenfewer have the knowledge of howthis system works. Additionally, bymeans of this slow and step-by-step integrationist procedure, nu-merous issues remain unsolvedand obscure or worse more prob-lems are being created in theplace of others already solved.These drawbacks cannot beremedied for the time being, dueto pragmatic and restraining fac-tors. But it seems to me thatthere should be, in the future, aclear will of the citizens of Eu-rope, for moving towards a po-litical union. This political unionshould have clear limits thatwould prescribe who is doingwhat and how, for reasons of e-vading ambiguity. An awakenedpublic opinion should have acrucial role to play in this field.

H «ÀfiıÂÛË ºÚ¿ÓÎÔ‚ÈÙ˜» ÚfiÎÂÈÙ·È ÁÈ· ÌÈ· ‰›ÎË ÛÙ·ıÌfi ÛÙ· ‰ÈηÛÙÈ-ο ¯ÚÔÓÈο Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘, ÌÈ· ‰›ÎË Ë ÔÔ›· ·¤‰ÂÈÍ fiÙÈ ÙÔ¢ÈηÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÙˆÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÒÓ ∫ÔÈÓÔÙ‹ÙˆÓ (ECJ) ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ¤Ó·˜ ·ıËÙÈ-Îfi˜ ·Ú·ÙËÚËÙ‹˜ ÙˆÓ ÙÂÎÙ·ÈÓÔÌÂÓˆÓ, ·ÏÏ¿ ·ÂÓ·ÓÙ›·˜ Â›Ó·È ¤Ó· fiÚÁ·-ÓÔ Ô˘ Ù¿ÛÛÂÙ·È Û·ÊÒ˜ ˘¤Ú ηÈ, Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ·, ÚÔˆı› Ì ˙‹ÏÔ ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ-·›Î‹ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË, ÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓÔ Û ۇÁÎÚÔ˘ÛË ÔÏϤ˜ ÊÔÚ¤˜ Ì ÙȘ ηıÂ-ÛÙ˘Î›Â˜ «‰È·Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈΤ˜» ·fi„ÂȘ Î·È Ú·ÎÙÈΤ˜ Ô˘ ÂÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Ó. ∆Ô¢ÈηÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ, Ì ÙËÓ ‰È·ÎÚÈÙÈ΋ ¢¯¤ÚÂÈ· ÂÚÌËÓ›·˜ ÙˆÓ ™˘ÓıËÎÒÓ Ô˘‰È·ı¤ÙÂÈ, ¤‚·Ï Ì ÙËÓ ÓÔÌÔÏÔÁ›· ÙÔ˘, ÚÒÙÔÓ, fiÙÈ ÔÈ ∫ÔÈÓÔÙÈΤ˜«√‰ËÁ›Â˜» ı· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ¿ÌÂÛË ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÁ‹ ÛÙÔ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎfi ÙˆÓÎÚ·ÙÒÓ-ÌÂÏÒÓ. ¢Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ, ·ÔÊ¿ÛÈÛ fiÙÈ ÛÙÔ ÂÍ‹˜ Ù· ÎÚ¿ÙË-̤ÏË ı· ˘-Ô¯ÚÂÔ‡ÓÙ·È Ó· ·Ô˙ËÌÈÒÓÔ˘Ó ÙÔ˘˜ Ôϛ٘ ÙÔ˘˜, ·Ó Ù· ›‰È· ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·Ô-Ù‡¯ÂÈ Ó· ÌÂٷʤÚÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋ ¤ÓÓÔÌË Ù¿ÍË ÙȘ ∫ÔÈÓÔÙÈΤ˜ «√‰Ë-Á›Â˜». ∏ ·fiÊ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ¢ÈηÛÙËÚ›Ô˘ ·˘Ù‹ ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛ ÌÈ· ·ÂÚ›ÊÚ·ÛÙË ·-Ó·ÁÓÒÚÈÛË ÙˆÓ ·ÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ ‰ÈÎ·ÈˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÚÔ˜ fiÊÂÏÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÒÓ Ù˘∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘. ŒÙÛÈ, ÙÔ ¢ÈηÛÙ‹ÚÈÔ ÙËÓ ÚÔÛ¤ÊÂÚ ÙËÓ ‰È΋ ÙÔ˘Û˘Ì‚ÔÏ‹ ÚÔ˜ ÙËÓ Î·Ù‡ı˘ÓÛË Ù˘ ·‡ÍËÛ˘ ÙˆÓ È¤ÛÂˆÓ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ‰ËÌÈ-Ô˘ÚÁ›· ÂÓfi˜ ∂˘Úˆ·˚ÎÔ‡ ™˘ÓÙ¿ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜.

¶ÂÚ›ÏË„Ë

™ËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ

1. Under Art. 169 EEC “if theCommission considers that a memberstate has failed to fulfil an obligation underthis Treaty” it may bring the matter beforethe ECJ.

2. This is the principle of Vertical DirectEffect

3. Craig, P. (1993) “Francovich,Remedies and the scope of damagesliability”, 109 The Law Quarterly Review,page 596

4. Stainer, J. (1993) “From directeffects to Francovich : shifting means ofenforcement of Community Law”, 18European Law Review, page 9.

5. Chalmers, D. (1998) “EuropeanLaw, Volume One: Law and EUGovernment”, Ashgate, page 399.

6. Art. 5 EEC : “MS are required to takeall appropriate measures, whether generalor particular, to ensure fulfilment of theirobligations under Community law”.Among these is the obligation to nullify theunlawful consequences of a breach ofCommunity law.

7. Craig, P. (1993) “Francovich,Remedies and the scope of damagesliability”, 109 The Law Quarterly Review,page 596.

8. The Article 189(3) EEC rules thatthe MS should take all the appropriatemeasures to achieve the result prescribedby a Directive.

9. Stainer, J. (1993) “From directeffects to Francovich : shifting means ofenforcement of Community Law”, 18European Law Review, page 8.

10. Chalmers, D. (1998) “EuropeanLaw, Volume One: Law and EU Govern-ment”, Ashgate, page 401.

11. Craig, P. (1993) “Francovich,Remedies and the scope of damagesliability”, 109 The Law Quarterly Review,page 620.

12. Stainer, J. (1993) “From directeffects to Francovich : shifting means ofenforcement of Community Law”, 18European Law Review, page 9.

13. Chalmers, D. (1998) “EuropeanLaw, Volume One: Law and EU Govern-ment”, Ashgate, page 401.

14. Craig, P. (1997) “Once more untothe breach: The Community, the State andthe Damages Liability”, Law QuarterlyReview 113, page 68.

15. Stainer, J. (1993) “From directeffects to Francovich : shifting means ofenforcement of Community Law”, 18European Law Review, page 10.

16. Harlow. C, (1996) “Francovich andthe problem of the disobedient state”, 2European Law Journal 199, page 211.

17. Chalmers, D. (1998) “EuropeanLaw, Volume One: Law and EUGovernment”, Ashgate, page 422.

18. Ibid, page 402.19. Ibid, page 421.20. Craig, P. (1993) “Francovich,

Remedies and the scope of damagesliability”, 109 The Law Quarterly Review,page 600.

21. Ibid, page 621.22. Chalmers, D. (1998) “European

Law, Volume One: Law and EU Govern-ment”, Ashgate, page 405

23. Craig, P. (1993) “Francovich,Remedies and the scope of damagesliability”, 109 The Law Quarterly Review,page 601.

Page 34: European Expression - Issue 48

1. The Structural FundRegulations andthe Cohesion Fund from2000 to 2006

On 16 July 1997, the Euro-pean Commission present-ed a communication enti-

tled Agenda 2000 (CEC, 1997b).The foundations for the Agenda2000 proposals with regard to co-hesion policies were developed inthe Commission’s first CohesionReport (CEC, 1996a).

These proposals outlined re-forms to the Commission’s mainpolicy areas, in particular to takeaccount of the implications of en-largement. Political agreement onthe new Structural Fund Regula-tions was reached during theBerlin European Council on 24-25March 1999. Finally, two furtherRegulations were adopted in July1999 incorporating the Amster-dam Treaty and ensuring the newERDF and ESF regulations takeaccount of employment and sus-tainable development (Bachtlerand Michie, 1999).

In the context of the StructuralFunds and the Cohesion Fund,the aims of the 1999 reform wereto achieve a greater concentrationof structural assistance and im-proved financial management ofthe funds, as well as simplified op-eration and administration, includ-

ing a performance reserve of atleast 10% (CEC, 1997a).

The previous seven priority Ob-jectives (1-6) in the 1993 reform(see separate page at the end forthe period 1989-1993) have beenreduced to three: two regional Ob-jectives (1 and 2) and a horizontalObjective (3) for human resourceswhich encompasses the formerObjectives 3 and 4.

The number of Community Ini-tiatives has been limited to four,each financed by a single Struc-tural Fund:

ñ INTERREG: crossborder,transnational and inter-regionalcooperation (ERDF);

ñ URBAN:sustainable urbandevelopment (ERDF);

ñ LEADER+:rural developmentthrough local initiatives (EAGGF-Guidance Section);

ñ EQUAL:reinforcement of e-qual opportunities in the labourmarket (ESF) – (Bachtler andMichie, 1999),

and their share of StructuralFund resources will be reducedfrom 9 to 5% (CEC, 1997a).

The Structural Funds Regula-tion provides for a total of 195 bil-lion euro over the seven year peri-od 2000-06 [plus 18 billion eurofor the Cohesion Fund-in total,0.46% of the Union’s gross na-tional product (GNP)], with fund-

ing declining from 2002 onwards,as the transitional provisions forregions losing assisted area sta-tus take effect (CEC, 1999).There is an increase in the totalStructural Fund budget of about45% and in the overall budget ofthe EU of 15-20% (Fothergill,1997:185).

Over two-thirds of the Structur-al Funds will be allocated to Ob-jective 1 (69.7%), a further 11.5%to Objective 2 and 12.3% to Ob-jective 3 (Bachtler and Michie,1999:23).

Finally, total transfers from theStructural Funds and the Cohe-sion Fund to a current or futuremember state should not exceed4% of its GNP (CEC, 1997a).

The key difference, apart fromthe merger of Objectives 1 (lag-ging regions) and 6 (remote Scan-dinavian areas), between the old(1994-99) and current definition ofObjective 1 areas, is that the eligi-bility criteria should be appliedstrictly (namely, NUTS II regionswith GDP – in PPS – per head ofless than 75% of the Communityaverage over the last three years).

In comparison to the past, theformer Objectives 2 (declining re-gions) and 5b (rural development)are grouped together under Ob-jective 2. Areas of urban crisis andthose areas, likely to be few,

∆he European regionalpolicy from 2000 to 2006

by Stavros RodokanakisLondon School of Economics, UK

Department of Geography and Environment

32 ™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Page 35: European Expression - Issue 48

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂ 33

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

whose problems are connected todependence on services are givennew emphasis (Hall, 1997).

The most important change, inreal terms, may be that from thebeginning concentration throughthe application of population wa-tersheds is emphasised, whereasin the past, Objective 2 applicabili-ty was characterised by the de-gree to which it exceeded cover-age goals.

As a result, the attitude to-wards Objective 2 coverage wasbasically centred around regulat-ing overall coverage and ensuringequitable distribution of the pro-posed cutbacks in the new plan-ning era. To achieve this, Objec-tive 2 coverage was curbed by thefollowing two quantitative factors:

ñ That the total coverage shouldnot surpass 18% of the Communi-ty population: 10% industrial ar-eas; 5% rural areas; 2% urban. In2006, Objective 2 coverage in-creases to 19.1% of the Commu-nity population as areas from Ob-jective 1 phase out are added(CEC, 1999).

ñ That the Objective 2 popula-tion of all member states shouldbe no less than two-thirds of thecurrent Objective 2 and 5b popu-lation, so that the force of realising‘concentration’ is shared – the so-called ‘safety net’ provisions(16.9% of the Community popula-tion – CEC, 1999).

If the coverage which results isless than two-thirds of the presentcoverage of Objective 2 and 5b to-gether for any member state, thenthe ‘safety net’ is reached bymeans of an upward adjustment.

Ex ante evaluation is also morerigorous and comprehensive thanbefore. The Regulations stipulateprecisely how the ex ante evalua-

tion should take into account thesituation in terms of competitive-ness and innovation, SMEs, em-ployment and the labour market,the environment and equal oppor-tunities (Bachtler and Michie,1999).

With respect to partnership, thenew Regulations state that part-nership should be broadened toinclude local and regional govern-ments, economic and social part-ners and other relevant bodies.

In return for decentralising theimplementation of Structural Fundmanagement, the new Regula-tions strengthen the monitoringrequirements to verify compliancewith strategic programming re-quirements and the proper use ofassistance in several ways.

Finally, the new Regulationsgive the primary responsibility forfinancial control to the member s-tates (Bachtler and Michie, 1999).

2. Critical analysis of the1999 reformEligibility and allocationcriteria

Some important changes re-garding eligibility are con-tained in the new Regulation

even though, in practical terms,the reforms do not go as far asthey appear to at first sight. Theold Objectives 1 and 6 are, in ef-fect, joined, as are Objectives 2and 5b; whilst the basic criteria foreach of the four Objectives retaintheir separate identities within thenew groupings, the decrease inthe number of Objectives fromfour to two is largely only for deco-ration.

Under the two Objectives, atti-tudes to area divisions are quitedissimilar: Objective 1 coverage is

deduced according to specific cri-teria being met by the regions’population, e.g. a ‘bottom up’ ap-proach; Objective 2 coverage ismostly based on a ‘top down’method, in which the most impor-tant factor is the desire to controloverall coverage, while distribut-ing cutbacks as equitably as pos-sible (Wishlade, 1999).

It is stated in the new Regula-tion that both Objective 1 and 2 al-locations should be made on thebasis of one or more objective cri-teria, resembling those laid downin the 1988 Structural Funds Reg-ulation, to wit eligible population,regional prosperity, national pros-perity and structural problems (inparticular unemployment).

The idea behind fixing the fi-nancial allocations for the Objec-tive 1 regions was that the degreeof assistance should be connect-ed to the size of the regional de-velopment dissimilarity in relationto the Community average, at thesame time taking into account na-tional prosperity and levels of un-employment.

For Greece, Spain and Ireland,annual per capita aid levels forObjective 1 regions in 2000-06are even lower compared to 1999(the highest funding year in the1994-99 period); aid per capita in2000-06 surpasses 1999 levelsonly in the Portuguese Objective 1regions (CEC, 1996b and CEC,1999).

The population covered by Ob-jective 2, adjusted for levels of un-employment, formed the basis forthe Objective 2 allocations for theplanning period 1994-99.

In the 1999 reform, however, ineffect the ‘hard criteria’ (the for-mer Objectives 2 and 5b) are onlypartially responsible for deciding

Page 36: European Expression - Issue 48

34 ™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Objective 2 coverage; significant-ly, satisfying the hard criteria doesnot ensure inclusion in the assist-ed area map. Coverage is decidednot so much by the eligibility crite-ria, whose role is largely a sham interms of Objective 2,as by thefloors and ceilings (Wishlade,1999).

In terms of the total budget, Ob-jective 2 funding, in contrast withObjective 1, is to be noticeably re-duced over the 2000-06 period.This is mainly due to the reductionin spatial coverage, which ac-counts for 28% of the Objective 2population (CEC, 1999).

Concentration

The theory behind concentra-tion of funding is that EU aidwill make a greater impact, if

it is targeted at fewer places.However, regions which have sofar been well-disposed towardsthe concept because they arebeneficiaries are less likely to besupportive, if they are in future ex-cluded. This would imply that re-gions covering some 35-40 millionpeople in the existing member s-tates are on course to lose eligibil-ity (Fothergill, 1997:187).

Structural Funds assistance in2006 will only be available to Ob-jective 1 phase-out regions thatmeet the Objective 2 criteria. Asignificant point of principle is thuslaid down for the future. The exis-tence of this barrier in 2006should decrease pressures forcarrying over assisted area statusinto the next planning period. It islikely that these provisions willmake for greater concentration inassisted area designation amongthe existing member states after2006. Community regional policy,however, is likely to intervene in

areas of each member state as aresult of the move away from na-tional prosperity as eligibility anddistribution criteria.

Although the criteria have beenstrictly adhered to, the extent towhich concentration has beenachieved under the new Regula-tion is open to question. Despitethe drop in Objective 1 coverageto 22.2% of the Community popu-lation from 24.6%, coveragereaches 25.6% of the Communitypopulation for six of the sevenyears of the planning period whenObjective 1 phase-out regions areadded (Wishlade, 1999:39).

Simplification

During the 1994-99 period,each of the Community Ini-tiatives had a different pro-

gramme, as well as each Objec-tive Area. Simplification meansthat regions will now have to sub-mit a single programme for theirregion (Benneworth, 1998).

Simplification is in itself proba-bly a good thing. The danger itbrings is that by reducing thenumber of spending programmes,it also reduces the range of oppor-tunities for areas to benefit fromEU regional aid.

Objective 2 regions – those ar-eas affected by industrial restruc-turing – have persistently beenthe most exposed to this down-side of simplification. The days ofthe four industrial Initiatives –RECHAR (coal closure areas),RESIDER (steel), RETEX (tex-tiles) and KONVER (defence in-dustries) – therefore appear num-bered (Fothergill, 1997).

They have proved to be an ef-fective way of targeting communi-ties with especially acute needsand have led to some of the most

innovative steps to involve localpeople. When the four industrialInitiatives disappear, some of theareas in question will be left with-out any EU regional support at all.Thus, simplification, however de-sirable, does have its price.

Enlargement

What is more important isthat serious problemsarise as a result of en-

largement. Almost all the existing15 member states would have tobecome net contributors to the re-gional budget and, very likely, tothe EU budget as a whole. We donot know whether there is to be amove towards the east as far asspending goes, or if there will bemore cash. For possible newmember states like the Czech Re-public or Hungary, where the ar-eas around the capital are notice-ably richer than the rest of thecountry, the reforms stress that itis not realistic for them to expect‘Cohesion country’ treatment ac-cording to the Regulations of1988 and 1993 (CEC, 1999).

The Cohesion Fund

The new Structural FundsRegulation gives preferenceto poorer areas at the ex-

pense of poorer countries. Look-ing at the Cohesion countries(Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ire-land) together, the total share ofthe Cohesion Four in StructuralActions spending will fall from53.8% of the total in the 1994-99period (CEC, 1996b) to 51.7% in2000-06 (CEC, 1999). One rea-son for the relative decrease inCohesion Four allocations is thereduced share of Cohesion Fundresources as a percentage ofStructural Actions, a result which

Page 37: European Expression - Issue 48

35

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂is mainly a reflection of the hostili-ty on the part of the richer mem-ber states towards the continua-tion of the Cohesion Fund formembers of EMU.

Furthermore, in the current pe-riod there is a reduction of 1.7% inthe Cohesion Four share of Struc-tural Funds allocations(Wish-lade,1999). Structural Funds re-sources are more centred on Ob-jective 1 than previously, but thisis of no direct benefit to the Cohe-sion Four in 2000-06. One reasonfor this is that their share of theObjective 1 population is smallerthan in the 1994-99 period (Ire-land, especially, is richer). Anotherreason is that the stress on re-gional prosperity, strengthenedduring agreement, is in favour ofthe poorest Objective 1 areas.

3. The ESDP, StructuralFunds and RDAs

In May 1999 at Potsdam, theEuropean Spatial Develop-ment Perspective (ESDP) was

completed (Faludi, 2001). Interms of European spatial plan-ning this was an important break-through and, even though no for-mal EU potency has yet been es-tablished, marked an importantstep forward for those who be-lieve that the EU should have a s-patial policy, so that greater co-herence can be achieved be-tween its various sectoral policyinstruments.

Since 1997 the ESDP has be-come well known despite the factthat many practicing planners donot understand it in the broadestsense. Its basic aim is to play apart in the development of a more‘multi-centred European area’,with a more equal regional evolu-tion. A fair amount of suspicion ex-

ists concerning its real aim,whereas its range and the role itmight play concerning more ortho-dox and statutory procedures oflocal and regional planning is of-ten misunderstood (Williams,1999b).

For the 2000-06 funding periodit is planned that urban fundingwill be ‘mainstreamed’ within theStructural Funds. The entire ques-tion of the relationship with theStructural Funds is vital, as thereis no possibility of a formal rela-tionship during this period.

What is attractive about theESDP is that it could facilitatemore visibility in Structural Fundallocations, and form the basis fora rational overall strategy. Somegovernments are opposed partlybecause they cannot see the ad-vantage of the ESDP, but also be-cause it may involve unwelcomeclose control of existing levels ofbenefit (Williams, 1999a).

On a wider basis, the EU iscommitted to ‘promoting territorialand social cohesion’ under Article7D of the Treaty of Amsterdam(1997). The ESDP could be a vitaldocument, helping DG XVI (Re-gional Policies and Cohesion) toappraise specific sectoral policy

initiatives from other DGs, fromthe point of view of their share inthe accomplishment of territorialcohesion.

In the meantime, the ESDP willbe put to the test when it is seen towhat extent it puts together thediscussion on spatial strategies forthe Regional Development Agen-cies (RDAs), that is the bringing in-to being of devolved regional gov-ernment institutions. In WesternEurope the increase in bottom-upregional policy was helped by R-DAs and the RDA stance is oftenclaimed to offer an important addi-tion or alternative to central gov-ernment’s customary financial in-centives (Halkier and Danson,1997).

4. Conclusion

The Community regional poli-cy’s stance concerning eligi-bility and financial allocations

has been significantly altered bythe new Structural Funds Regula-tion. In a more general sense, theattitude to area designation andthe parcelling out of funding indi-cate the difficulties involved inmaking competing national inter-est compatible to gain general a-greement.

Table 1

√bjective 1 Lagging regions all Funds 63Objective 2 Declining regions ERDF, ESF 12Objective 3 Long - term unemploument ESF )

)) 12

Objective 4 Youth unemploument ESF )Objective 5a Argicultural adjustment EAGGF 6Objective 5b Rural development all Funds 5Other 2

Source: CEC, 1990

Page 38: European Expression - Issue 48

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

™ À ° ∫ § π ™ ∏ ∂ ∂36

The reform package introducesdecentralised programming,broader partnerships and moreaccountable and transparentmonitoring procedures as well assimpler and more exacting man-agement arrangements, includinga performance reserve.

The 1999 revision represents afurther positive streamlining of ad-ministrative procedures. However,the persistence of the develop-ment gap, the challenges associ-ated with integration, the EU en-largement and the experiencegained in the first years of the newregional policy (1988-2002), aswell as the fact that key guidelinesof the last reform are rather deco-rative, will prompt modifications tothe guidelines to be followed in fu-ture years.

REFERENCES

Bachtler J. and Michie R. (1999),The new Structural Fund Regula-tions, Regions: the newsletter of theRegional Studies Association, No224, December, 22-31.

Benneworth P. (1998), RDAs andthe European Structural Funds, Re-gions: the newsletter of the RegionalStudies Association, No218, Decem-ber, 9-14.

CEC (Commission of the Euro-pean Communities - 1990), Guide tothe reform of the Community’s Struc-tural Funds, Office for Official Publica-tions of the European Communities,CEC, Brussels/Luxembourg.

CEC (1996a), First Report on eco-nomic and social cohesion,COM(96)542, CEC, Brussels/Luxem-bourg.

CEC (1996b), Structural Fundsand Cohesion Fund 1994-99: Regula-tions and commentary, OOPEC, Lux-embourg.

CEC (1997a), The StructuralFunds and the Cohesion Fund from2000 to 2006, DG for Regional Policyand Cohesion, July, CEC,

Brussels/Luxembourg.

CEC (1997b), Agenda 2000: For astronger and wider Union, COM (97)2000 final, CEC, Brussels/Luxem-bourg.

CEC (1999), EU Structural Funds:Commission decides financial alloca-tions, IP/99/442, Brussels, 1 July.

Eurostat (various years).

Faludi A. (2001), The applicationof the European Spatial Develop-ment Perspective: Evidence from theNorth-West Metropolitan Area, Euro-pean Planning Studies, 9 (5), 663-75.

Fothergill S. (1997), The prema-ture death of EU regional policy?, Eu-ropean Urban and Regional Studies,5 (2), 183-8.

Halkier H. and Danson M. (1997),Regional Development Agencies inWestern Europe: A survey of keycharacteristics and trends, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies, 4(3),243-56.

Hall R. (1997), Agenda 2000 andEuropean cohesion policies, Euro-pean Urban and Regional Studies,5(2), 176-83.

Williams R.H. (1999a), The road toESPON: The EU spatial research net-work, paper to Planning ResearchConference, March, University ofSheffield.

Williams R.H. (1999b), Construct-ing the European Spatial Develop-ment Perspective: Consensus with-out a competence, Regional Studies,

33(8), 793-7.

Wishlade F. (1999), Who getswhat? Eligible areas and financial al-locations under the new StructuralFunds, Regions: the newsletter of theRegional Studies Association, No223, October, 37-48.

ABBREVIATIONSCEC=Commission of the EuropeanCommunities

CSF=Community Support Framework

DG=Directorate General

EAGGF=European Agricultural Guid-ance and Guarantee Fund

EC=European Community

EMU=Economic and Monetary Union

ERDF=European Regional Develop-ment Fund

ESDP=European Spatial Develop-ment Perspective

ESF=European Social Fund

EU=European Union

GDP=Gross Domestic Product

GNP=Gross National Product

NUTS=Nomenclature of StatisticalTerritorial Units

PPS = Purchasing Power Standards

RDAs=Regional Development Agencies

SEA=Single European Act

SMEs=Small and Medium Enterpris-es(∂ÏÏËÓÈο)∞∂ = ∞Ó·Ù˘ÍȷΤ˜ ∂Ù·Èڛ˜™∞∫à = ™¯¤‰ÈÔ ∞Ó¿Ù˘Í˘ÔÈÓÔÙÈÎÔ‡ ÃÒÚÔ˘

∆Ô ·ÚfiÓ ¿ÚıÚÔ ·Ó·Ê¤ÚÂÙ·È ÛÙ· ÈÔ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈο ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù· Ù˘·Ó·ıÂÒÚËÛ˘ ÙÔ˘ 1999 ÙˆÓ ¢È·ÚıÚˆÙÈÎÒÓ ∆·Ì›ˆÓ, fiˆ˜ ÔÈ ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜Ô˘ ‰ÈηÈÔ‡ÓÙ·È ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÔ‰fiÙËÛË Î·È Ù· ÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· ηıÔÚÈÛÌÔ‡ ÙÔ˘˜, ËÂÛÙ›·ÛË Û ÂÚÈÔ¯¤˜ Ô˘ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·Ó¿ÁÎË, Ë ·ÏÔÔ›ËÛË Î·È Ë ‰È‡ڢÓÛËÙ˘ ŒÓˆÛ˘.

™ÙË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ· ÚÔÛÂÁÁ›˙Ô˘Ì ÎÚÈÙÈο, ÙfiÛÔ Ù· ΢ÚÈfiÙÂÚ· ÛËÌ›· ÙÔ˘Ó¤Ô˘ ∫·ÓÔÓÈÛÌÔ‡ Î·È ÙȘ Èı·Ó¤˜ ÂÈÙÒÛÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÚ›Ô‰Ô 2000-06,fiÛÔ Î·È ÙȘ ·ÏÏ·Á¤˜ Ô˘ ÛËÌÂÈÒıËÎ·Ó ÛÙÔ ∆·ÌÂ›Ô ™˘ÓÔ¯‹˜. ∞ÎfiÌË,·Ó·Ï‡Ô˘Ì ÙË Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂٷ͇ ™∞∫Ã, ¢È·ÚıÚˆÙÈÎÒÓ ∆·Ì›ˆÓ Î·È ∞∂.

™˘ÌÂÚ·›ÓÔ˘ÌÂ, fiÙÈ ·ÚfiÏÔ Ô˘ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ Î¿ÔÈ· ÚfiÔ‰Ô˜ Û fiÚÔ˘˜‰È·Ê¿ÓÂÈ·˜, ·Ú·ÎÔÏÔ‡ıËÛ˘ Î·È ÂϤÁ¯Ô˘ ÙˆÓ ‰È·‰ÈηÛÈÒÓ, ÔÈÙÚÔÔÔÈ‹ÛÂȘ ÛÙȘ ηÙ¢ı˘ÓÙ‹ÚȘ ÁÚ·Ì̤˜ ı· Â›Ó·È ·Ó·fiÊ¢ÎÙ˜ÛÙÔ ÂÁÁ‡˜ ̤ÏÏÔÓ.

¶ÂÚ›ÏË„Ë

Page 39: European Expression - Issue 48

37

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

K O I N ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡

What kind of citizen?The politics of educating for Democracy

by Joel WestheimerUniversity of Ottawa and Joseph Kahne, Mills College

For some, a commitment to democracy isassociated with liberal notions of

freedom, while for others democracy isprimarily about equality or equality of

opportunity. For some, civil society is thekey, while others place their hope for

social change in healthy free markets.For some, good citizens in a democracy

volunteer, while for others they takeactive parts in political processes by

voting, forming committees, protesting,and working on campaigns. It is not

surprising, then, that the growing numberof educational programs that seek to

further democracy by nurturing “good”citizens embody a similarly broad variety

of goals and practices. This article “What Kind of Citizen?”. Tocall attention to the spectrum of ideasabout what good citizenship is and whatgood citizens do that are embodied bydemocratic education programsnationwide. The subtitle “The Politics ofEducation for Democracy” to underscoreour belief that the narrow and oftenideologically conservative conception ofcitizenship embedded in many currentefforts at teaching for democracy reflectsneitherarbitrary choices nor pedagogical limitations but rather political choices withpolitical consequences.

What Kind of Citizen?

Philosophers, historians andpolitical scientists have long

debated which conceptions ofcitizenship would best advancedemocracy (see, for example,Kaestle, 2000; Smith, 1997;Schudson, 1998). Indeed, asConnolly (1983) has argued,conceptions of democracy andcitizenship have been and willlikely always be debated – nosingle formulation will triumph.Even though the work of JohnDewey has perhaps done themost to shape dialogues aroundeducation and democracy,

scholars and practitioners haveinterpreted his ideas in multipleways, so no single conceptionemerges. In large part, thisdiversity of perspectives occursbecause the stakes are so high.Conceptions of “good citizenship”imply conceptions of the goodsociety (Parker, 1996).Currently, for example, as DavidMiller (1995) points out, bothcenter-left and center-rightthinkers emphasize citizenship(leading, in part, to theresurgence of interest incitizenship as a goal). At thesame time, their reasons forfocusing on citizenship and their

definitions of what this focusimplies differ markedly. Millerargues that conservatives’interest in the concept stemsfrom their emerging recognitionthat free market dynamics areinsufficient to bring cohesion tosociety. In particular, they hope topromote both moral values andsocial responsibility by focusingon citizenship. They portray the“good citizen” as one who “sticksto the rules of the economicgame while at the same timeperforming acts of public servicesuch as charitable work in his orher local community” (433). Millerwrites that the center-left, on the

Page 40: European Expression - Issue 48

38

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

K O I N ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡other hand, believe thatemphasizing conceptions of goodcitizenship that embody a senseof shared identity will help providea diverse population with arationale for and commitment to“defend[ing] redistributiveeconomic policies” (433). Theseare but two perspectives. Theways these two groups thinkabout the importance of “goodcitizenship” in a democraticsociety also differs significantlyfrom those who, often referencingRobert Putnam’s (2000; 1993)work, argue that promotingcollective civic participation moregenerally will make both thedemocracy and the economyfunction more effectively.Needless to say, there are manyother visions and each reflectsomewhat different formulationsof the desired connectionsbetween democracy andcitizenship (see also Tarcov,1996; Soder et al., 2001).

What Kind of Curriculum?

∆he diverse perspectives oncitizenship and the significant

implications of these differencesare also quite clear when oneexamines dialogues that surroundeducational efforts to promotedemocratic aims. This vitalintellectual discourse does notprovide anything close toconsensus. For example, WalterParker (1996) describes threevery different conceptions ofcitizen education for a democraticsociety: “traditional,”“progressive,” and “advanced.”He explains that traditionalistsemphasize an understanding ofhow government works (how abill becomes a law, for example)

and traditional subject areacontent as well as commitmentsto core democratic values – suchas freedom of speech or liberty ingeneral (see, for example, Butts,1988). Progressives share asimilar commitment to thisknowledge, but they embracevisions like “strong democracy”(Barber, 1984) and place agreater emphasis on civicparticipation in its numerousforms (see, for example,Newmann, 1975; Hannah,1936;). Finally, “advanced”citizenship, according to Parker,is one that builds on theprogressive perspective but addscareful attention to inherenttensions between pluralism andassimilation or to what CharlesTaylor, labels the “politics ofrecognition” (1994, cited inParker).Others, place a greater emphasison the need for social critique andstructural change. They arguethat educators should promotewhat Jesse Goodman (1992)calls “critical democracy,” Ira Shor(1992) calls “empoweringeducation”, and Paulo Friere(1970) calls a “Pedagogy of theOppressed.” These visionschampion civic action informed bysocial critique and structuralanalysis. They also align withperspectives put forward earlierthis century by socialreconstructionists or thoseHerbert Kliebard (1995) labelssocial meliorists1.In striking contrast with theseperspectives is the relativelyconservative vision of citizenshipeducation put forward by thosewho emphasize the connectionbetween citizenship andcharacter (Bennett, 1995; 1998;

Bennett, Cribb, & Finn, 1999).Rather than viewing the problemsin need of attention as structural,they emphasize problems insociety caused by personaldeficits. Schools, therefore,according to advocates ofcharacter education, should becharged not only with conveyingfacts about how the governmentworks (as in traditional civiceducation) but also with teachingstudents to be honest, charitable,“…diligent, obedient, andpatriotic” (Wynne, 1986, 6). Thisview aligns with the conservativeview described by Miller aboveand harkens back to whatShudson (1998) descibes as avision of ‘colonial citizenship’“built on social hierarchy and thetraditions of public service,personal integrity, [and] charitablegiving” (294).To make matters morecomplicated, educators putforward a diverse array ofstrategies for achieving thesegoals (Hahn, 1998). For example,many emphasize thedevelopment of knowledge andskills. Marshaling considerabledata, Neimi and Junn (1998)show that civics courses canteach important, relevantinformation and Delli Carpini andKeeter (1996) show that suchinformation is a fuel that enablesmultiple kinds of “good citizens”to be effective. Others promotecommunity service and servicelearning, stressing the importanceof actual experiences in thecommunity to foster civicidentities (Barber, 1992;Education Commission of theStates, 2000; Youniss & Yates,1997). In addition, many tout theimportance of preparing students

Page 41: European Expression - Issue 48

39

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

K O I N ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡for democratic citizenship throughschools that function asdemocratic communitiesthemselves (Glickman, 1998;Power, 1988; Wade, 1995) whilemany have studied stubborncontradictions in these kinds ofreforms (Oakes et al., 2000;Zeichner, 1991). Thesestrategies, in turn, are neithermutually exclusive nor limited to aparticular conception of the goodcitizen. Since the focus of ourstudy came out of an initiative toexplore democratic values ineducation, our discussion thatfollows is less about differentstrategies educators use to get toa particular democraticdestination than about the variedconceptions of the destinationitself, thus our focus: what kind ofcitizen?

Three Kinds of Citizens

√ur framework aims to ordersome of these perspectives

by grouping three differing kindsof answers to a question that is ofcentral importance for bothpractitioners and scholars: Whatkind of citizen do we need tosupport an effective democraticsociety? In mapping the terrainthat surrounds answers to thisquestion, we found that threevisions of “citizenship” wereparticularly helpful in makingsense of the variation: thepersonally responsible citizen; theparticipatory citizen; and thejustice oriented citizen (see Table1).These three categories werechosen because they satisfiedour two main criteria: 1) theyaligned well with prominenttheoretical perspectives

described above, and 2) theyarticulate ideas and ideals thatresonate with practitioners(teachers, administrators, andcurriculum designers). To thatend, we consulted with both the10 teams of educators whosework we studied and with otherleaders in the field in an effort tocreate categories anddescriptions that aligned well withand communicated clearly theirdiffering priorities2. A caveat: although these threecategories were chosen tohighlight important differences inthe ways educators conceive ofdemocratic educational aims, wedo not mean to imply that a givenprogram might not simultaneouslyfurther more than one of theseagendas. These categories werenot designed to be mutuallyexclusive. For instance, while acurriculum designed principally topromote personally responsiblecitizens will generally look quitedifferent than one that focusesprimarily on developing capacitiesand commitments forparticipatory citizenship, it ispossible for a given curriculum tofurther both goals. Indeed, whendiscussing the Bayside Studentsfor Justice curriculum below, wewill highlight the ways itincorporated a concern forpersonal responsibility into itsfocus on broader issues ofjustice. At the same time thatsuch overlap may occur, webelieve that drawing attention tothe distinctions between thesevisions of citizenship is important.It highlights the importance ofexamining the underlying goalsand assumptions that drivedifferent educational programs indesign and practice.

The Personally ResponsibleCitizenThe personally responsible citizenacts responsibly in his/hercommunity by, for example,picking up litter, giving blood,recycling, volunteering, andstaying out of debt. Thisconception aligns well with thecenter-right perspective Milleroutlined and the Colonialconception of the good citizenidentified by Schudson. Thepersonally responsible citizenworks and pays taxes, obeyslaws, and helps those in needduring crises such as snowstormsor floods. The personallyresponsible citizen contributes tofood or clothing drives whenasked and volunteers to helpthose less fortunate whether in asoup kitchen or a senior center.S/he might contribute time,money, or both to charitablecauses.Both those in the charactereducation movement and many ofthose who advocate communityservice would emphasize thisindividualistic vision of goodcitizenship. Programs that seekto develop personally responsiblecitizens hope to build characterand personal responsibility byemphasizing honesty, integrity,self-discipline, and hard work(Horace Mann, 1838; andcurrently proponents such asLickona, 1993; Wynne, 1986).The Character Counts! Coalition,for example, advocates teachingstudents to “treat others withrespect…deal peacefully withanger…be considerate of thefeelings of others…follow theGolden Rule…use goodmanners” and so on. They wantstudents not to “threaten, hit, or

Page 42: European Expression - Issue 48

40

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

∫ √ π ¡ ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡

hurt anyone [or use] badlanguage” (Character Counts!,1996). Other programs that seekto develop personally responsiblecitizens hope to nurturecompassion by engagingstudents in volunteer activities.As illustrated in the mission ofthe Points of Light Foundation,these programs hope to “help

solve serious social problems” by“engag[ing] more people moreeffectively in volunteer service”(www. points oflight.org, April2000).

The Participatory Citizen

√ther educators see goodcitizens as those who actively

participate in the civic affairs and

the social life of the community atlocal, state, and national levels.We call this kind of citizen theparticipatory citizen. Proponentsof this vision emphasize preparingstudents to engage in collective,community-based efforts.Educational programs designed tosupport the development ofparticipatory citizens focus on

†For help in structuring this table, we are indebted to James Toole and a focus group of Minnesota teachers.

Table 1. Kinds of Citizens

Personally Responsible Participatory Citizen Justice OrientedCitizen Citizen

Acts responsibly in Active member of Critically assesses

his/her community community organizations social, political, and

and/or improvement economic structures

Works and paus taxes efforts to see beyond surface

causes

Obeys laws Organizes community

efforts to care for those in Seeks out and

Recycles, gives blood need, promote economic addresses areas of

development, or clean up injustice

Volunteers to lend a hand environment

in time crisis Knows about social

Knows how government movements and how

agencies work to effect systemic

change

Knows strategies for

accomplishing collective

tasks

Page 43: European Expression - Issue 48

K O I N ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡ 41

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

teaching students about howgovernment and other institutions(eg. community basedorganizations, churches) workand about the importance ofplanning and participating inorganized efforts to care for thosein need, for example, or in effortsto guide school policies. Skillsassociated with such collectiveendeavors–such as how to run ameeting–are also viewed asimportant (Newmann, 1975; alsosee Verba, at al., 1995 for anempirical analysis of theimportance of such skills andactivities). While the personallyresponsible citizen wouldcontribute cans of food for thehomeless, the participatorycitizen might organize the fooddrive. In the tradition of De Tocqueville,proponents of participatorycitizenship argue that civicparticipation transcends particularcommunity problems or

opportunities. It also developsrelationships, commonunderstandings, trust, andcollective commitments. Thisperspective, like BenjaminBarber’s notion of “strongdemocracy,” adopts a broadnotion of the political sphere –one in which citizens “withcompeting but overlappinginterests can contrive to livetogether communally” (1984,118).Similar themes have beenemphasized throughout thisnation’s history. Dewey (1916)put forward a vision of“Democracy as a Way of Life” andemphasized participation incollective endeavors. To supportthe efficacy of these collectiveefforts, he also emphasizedcommitments to communication,experimentation, and scientificallyinformed dialogues. Suchcommitments were also prevalentin the educational writings of the

Nation’s founders. ThomasJefferson, Benjamin Franklin, andothers viewed informedparticipation in civic life as afundamental support for ademocratic society and saweducation as a chief means forfurthering this goal (Pangle &Pangle, 1993).From “What Kind of Citizen? ThePolitics of Educating forDemocracy” by Joel Westheimer& Joseph Kahne

The Justice OrientedCitizen

√ur third image of a goodcitizen is, perhaps, the

perspective that is leastcommonly pursued. We refer tothis view as the justice orientedcitizen because advocates ofthese priorities use rhetoric andanalysis that calls explicitattention to matters of injustice

What kind of citizen?

Page 44: European Expression - Issue 48

42 K O I N ø ¡ π ∞ ¶ √ § π ∆ ø ¡

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

and to the importance of pursuingsocial justice. Although educatorsaiming to promote justice orientedcitizens may well employcurriculum that makes politicalissues more explicit than thosewho emphasize personalresponsibility or participatorycitizenship, the focus on socialchange and social justice doesnot imply an emphasis onparticular political perspectives,conclusions, or priorities. Rather,justice oriented citizens criticallyassess social, political, andeconomic structures and considercollective strategies for changethat challenge injustice and, whenpossible, address root causes ofproblems3. The vision of thejustice oriented citizen shareswith the vision of the participatorycitizen an emphasis on collectivework related to the life and issuesof the community. Its emphasis onresponding to social problems andto structural critique make itsomewhat different, however.Building on perspectives likethose of Freire, Shor, andGoodman noted earlier,educational programs thatemphasize social change seek toprepare students to improvesociety by critically analyzing andaddressing social issues andinjustices. These programs areless likely to emphasize the needfor charity and volunteerism asends in themselves and morelikely to teach about socialmovements and how to effectsystemic change (See, forexample, Issac, 1995; Bigelowand Diamond, 1988). While thosewho support the development ofparticipatory citizens mightemphasize developing students’

skills and commitments so thatthey could and would choose toorganize the collection of clothingfor members of the communitywho can’t afford it, those whoseek to support the developmentof justice oriented citizens wouldemphasize helping studentschallenge structural causes ofpoverty and devise possibleresponses. In other words, ifparticipatory citizens areorganizing the food drive andpersonally responsible citizensare donating food, justice orientedcitizens are asking why peopleare hungry and acting on whatthey discover. That today’scitizens are “bowling alone”(Putnam, 2000) would worrythose focused on civicparticipation. Those whoemphasize social justice,however, would worry more thatwhen citizens do get together,they often fail to focus on or tocritically analyze the socialeconomic, and political structuresthat generate problems.The strongest proponents of thisperspective were likely the SocialReconstructionists who gainedtheir greatest hearing betweenthe two world wars. Educatorslike Harold Rugg4 (1921) arguedthat the teaching of history inparticular and the schoolcurriculum more generally shouldbe developed in ways thatconnect with important andenduring social problems.George Counts (1932) asked,“Dare the School Build a NewSocial Order?” He wantededucators to critically assessvaried social and economicinstitutions while also “engag[ing]in the positive task of creating a

new tradition in American life”

(262). These educators

emphasized that truly effective

citizens needed opportunities to

analyze and understand the

interplay of social, economic, and

political forces and to take part in

projects through which they

might develop skills and

commitments for working

collectively to improve society.

™ËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ

1 For a description of a contemporary

curriculum that reflects this emphasis,

see Westheimer and Kahne (2002).

2 Our desire to respond to prominent

educational theories related to

democratic ideals and to develop a

framework that practitioners would find

both clear and meaningful led us to

modify our categories in several ways.

For example, we began this study

emphasizing a distinction between

“charity” and “change”. We had used

this distinction in earlier writing (Kahne

and Westheimer, 1996). Through the

course of our work, however, it became

clear that this distinction did not do

enough to capture main currents in

dialogues of practitioners and scholars

regarding democratic educational goals

and ways to achieve them. In addition,

once our three categories were

identified, we found that some of our

rhetoric failed to clearly convey our

intent. For example, we had initially

titled our third category the “social

reconstructionist.” As a result of

dialogues with practitioners this was

changed to the “social reformer” and

finally to the “justice oriented citizen.”

3 For a discussion of the distinction

between pursuit of justice oriented

citizenship and indoctrination, see

Westheimer and Kahne, 2002.

4 Rugg is also sometimes referred to as

a progressive experimentalist.

Page 45: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ ƒ ∂ À ¡ ∞ 43

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó ÔÏÏÔ› Ù‡ÔÈÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ Ô˘ ʇ-ÁÔ˘Ó ·fi ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈΤ˜Î·Ù·ÛÙ¿ÛÂȘ Î·È ·ÓÙÈÌÂ-

Ùˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈΤ˜ ˘Ô‰Ô-¯¤˜ ·Ó¿ÏÔÁ· Ì ÙË ¯ÒÚ· ÚÔÔÚÈ-ÛÌÔ‡ ÙÔ˘˜. ¶ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÔ˘Ó ÙÔ˘˜ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡˜ Î·È ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎÔ‡˜ÚfiÛÊ˘Á˜, ı‡Ì·Ù· ÙˆÓ ÂÌfi-ÚˆÓ Ô˘ ÂȉÈÒÎÔ˘Ó Ì οı ·-ÓÙ›ÙÈÌÔ Ó· ÂÚ¿ÛÔ˘Ó Ï·ıÚ·›· Ù·Û‡ÓÔÚ·, ¿ÓıÚˆÔÈ Ì ÙÔ˘ÚÈÛÙÈ-Τ˜ visa Ô˘ ÂÏ›˙Ô˘Ó Ó· ‚ÚÔ‡Ó¤Ó· ÙÚfiÔ Ó· ·Ú·Ì›ÓÔ˘Ó ÛÙ˯ÒÚ· fiÙ·Ó Ë ¿‰ÂÈ· Ï‹ÍÂÈ, ·ÏÏ¿Î·È ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂȘ ÂÈÎÔÓÈÎÒÓ Á¿-ÌˆÓ Î·È ÚÔÛ¿ıÂȘ ÁÈ· ÔÈÎÔÁÂ-ÓÂȷ΋ ·ӤӈÛË. ∞ÎfiÌ· ÔÈ ˙ˆ-¤˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Û˘¯Ó¿ ¤Ó· ÎÔÈÓfiÛÙÔÈ¯Â›Ô – ÙÔ Â›‰Ô˜ ÂÚÁ·ÛÈÒÓÔ˘ “ÚÔÛʤÚÔÓÙ·È”: ‚ÚÒÌÈΘ,

‰‡ÛÎÔϘ Î·È ÂÈΛӉ˘Ó˜. °È· Ó· ·Ó·Î·Ï‡„Ô˘Ó ÂÚÈÛ-

ÛfiÙÂÚ· ÁÈ· ÙȘ ˙ˆ¤˜ ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·-Ó·ÛÙÒÓ Î·È ÁÈ· Ó· Û˘ÁÎÚ›ÓÔ˘ÓÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ÛÙ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÙȘ ‰È·-ÊÔÚÂÙÈΤ˜ ¯ÒÚ˜, 17 Â˘Úˆ·˚-ο ÂÚ¢ÓËÙÈο ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù· Â-ÛÙ›·Û·Ó Û ÙÚ›· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈο ı¤-Ì·Ù·: Ù· ¯·Ú·ÎÙËÚÈÛÙÈο ÙÔ˘ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙ¢ÙÈÎÔ‡ Ê·ÈÓÔ̤ÓÔ˘(‰È·‰ÚÔ̤˜, ÏfiÁÔÈ, ̤ıÔ‰Ô˜,Î.Ï....) ÙȘ Û˘Óı‹Î˜ ‰È·‚›ˆÛË˜ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ Î·È ÙȘ ¢ηÈ-ڛ˜, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Ù· ÂÌfi‰È·, ÛÙËÓÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË, ÂȉÈο ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜Ó¤Ô˘˜ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ÁÂÓ¿˜.

∂ÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÁÓ‹ÛÈÔ˘˜ Ô-ÏÈÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ÚfiÛÊ˘Á˜, Ë ÌÂÙ·Ó¿-ÛÙ¢ÛË Â›Ó·È Ë ˘fiÛ¯ÂÛË ÌÈ·˜Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚ˘ ˙ˆ‹˜, ‹ ·ÚÎÂÙ¿ ·Ï¿

ÌÈ·˜ “˙ˆ‹˜” Î·È fiÏˆÓ ·˘ÙÒÓ Ô˘·˘Ù‹ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Û fiÚÔ˘˜ ÂÚ-Á·Û›·˜, ÂÈÛÔ‰‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÛÙ¤Á˘.∫·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘,·˘Ù¿ Ù· ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙ¢ÙÈο ·̷ٷ¤¯Ô˘Ó ·ÚÔ˘ÛÈ¿ÛÂÈ ÌÂÙ·‚·ÏÏfi-ÌÂÓ˜ Ù¿ÛÂȘ. ∂ÓÒ Ë ÔÈÎÔÁÂÓÂÈ·-΋ ·ӤӈÛË ÌÂÈÒÓÂÙ·È, ¤Ó·˜·˘Í·ÓfiÌÂÓÔ˜ ·ÚÈıÌfi˜ ·Ó‡·-ÓÙÚˆÓ ‰È·Û¯›˙ÂÈ Ù· Û‡ÓÔÚ· ÁÈ·Ó· ·Ú¯›ÛÂÈ ÙȘ ÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜ ˆ˜ ÂÛˆ-ÙÂÚÈ΋ ‚Ô‹ıÂÈ· ‹ ÛÙÔÓ ÙÔ̤· ÙÔ˘ÙÔ˘ÚÈÛÌÔ‡. À¿Ú¯Ô˘Ó Ó¤ÔÈ Ô˘ÌÔÚ› Ó· ÌËÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÌÈ· ȉȷ›ÙÂ-Ú· ÛÎÏËÚ‹ ˙ˆ‹ ÛÙËÓ ¯ÒÚ· ÙÔ˘˜,·ÏÏ¿ Û‡ÚÔÓÙ·È ·fi ÙÔ ı¤ÏÁËÙÚÔ«Ù˘ ¢ηÈÚ›·˜». ¶ÔÏÏÔ› ηٷϋ-ÁÔ˘Ó Û ÌÈ· ·‚¤‚·ÈË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋·ÁÚÈfiÙËÙ· ÛÙ· ÂÚÈıÒÚÈ· Ù˘ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜ ·Ú¿ Û ¤Ó·Ó ÎfiÛÌÔÔÓ›ÚÔ˘.

¢ÂηÂÙ¿ ÔÌ¿‰Â˜ ÂÚ¢ÓËÙÒÓ Ì ÙËÓ ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË Ù˘ ÂÈÙÚÔ‹˜ÂÚ‡ÓËÛ·Ó Ù· ˙ËÙ‹Ì·Ù· Ô˘ ÂÚÈ‚¿ÏÏÔ˘Ó ÙË ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢ÛË Î·È ÙËÓÂÓۈ̿وÛË. ∞Ó·˙‹ÙËÛ·Ó ··ÓÙ‹ÛÂȘ Û ÂÚˆÙ‹Ì·Ù· Û¯ÂÙÈο ÌÂÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· Ù˘ ηıËÌÂÚÈÓ‹˜ ˙ˆ‹˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜,ÙËÓ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ ÁÂÓ¿˜, ÙԉȷÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈÎfi ‰È¿ÏÔÁÔ Î·È ÙȘ ‰È·Û˘ÓÔÚȷΤ˜ ·Ú·ÏÏ·Á¤˜ ÛÙËÓÔÏÈÙÈ΋ ÂÓۈ̿وÛ˘. ∆· Û˘ÌÂÚ¿ÛÌ·Ù¿ ÙÔ˘˜ ÛÎÈ·ÁÚ·ÊÔ‡Ó ÙÔı¤Ì· Î·È Â›Ó·È ‰È‰·ÎÙÈο.

¶ÚÔÛÂÁÁ›˙ÔÓÙ·˜

Ù˘ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢Û˘ÙÔ Úfi‚ÏËÌ·

RTD info No 36, February 2003European Commission

Page 46: European Expression - Issue 48

44 ∂ ƒ ∂ À ¡ ∞

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

¶ÚÔÛÊÔÚ¿ Î·È ˙‹ÙËÛË

∏ÎÂÚ‰ÔÛÎÔ›· ·Óı› ¿Û¯ÂÙ··fi ÙÔ Â¿Ó Ë ·Ú¿ÓÔÌËÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢ÛË ˆÔÙÔΛ

ÌÈ· ·Ú¿ÏÏËÏË (·Ú·)ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·.√È ÂÚ¢ÓËÙ¤˜ Ô˘ ÂÚÁ¿˙ÔÓÙ·ÈÛÙÔ Migration Insertion ÛÙÔ ¿Ù˘Ô√ÈÎÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· ·ÔÚÚ›-ÙÔ˘Ó ·˘Ù‹Ó ÙËÓ Â˘Ú¤ˆ˜ ‰È·‰Â-‰Ô̤ÓË ÂÔ›ıËÛË. ∫·Ù·Ï‹ÁÔ˘ÓÛÙÔ Û˘Ì¤Ú·ÛÌ· fiÙÈ “¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó·Â›Ó·È ÌÈ· ›‰Ú·ÛË Ù˘ ·Ú¿ÓÔ-Ì˘ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢Û˘, Ë ·Ú·ÔÈÎÔ-ÓÔÌ›· Â›Ó·È ÌÈ· ·fi ÙȘ ·Èٛ˜Ù˘”. ∂Ô̤ӈ˜, Â›Ó·È ·˘Ù‹ Ë ·-Ú¿ÏÏËÏË ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›· Ô˘ Ú¤ÂÈÓ· Û˘ÁÎÚ·ÙËı›, Â¿Ó Ë ÚÔ‹ ÙˆÓ·Ú¿ÓÔÌˆÓ ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ ÂȉÈÒ-ÎÂÙ·È Ó· ÌÂȈı›. ™ÙËÓ πÛ·Ó›·,·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ¯¿ÚÈÓ, ÔÈ ·ÎÚÈ-‚›˜ Î·È ·ÔÙÂÏÂÛÌ·ÙÈÎÔ› ¤ÏÂÁ-¯ÔÈ ÛÙËÓ ·‰‹ÏˆÙË ÂÚÁ·Û›· Ô˘ÂÈÛ‹¯ıË ÛÙ· ̤۷ Ù˘ ‰ÂηÂÙ›·˜ÙÔ˘ ‘90 Ô‰‹ÁËÛ·Ó Û ÌÈ· ÙÒÛË

ÛÙËÓ ÂÈÛÚÔ‹ ÙˆÓ·Ú¿ÓÔÌˆÓ ÌÂÙ·-Ó·ÛÙÒÓ.

∞ÏÏ¿, ›Ù ÓfiÌÈ-Ì· ›Ù ·Ú¿ÓÔÌ·,ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ·-ÓÙ·ÁˆÓ›˙ÔÓÙ·È Ì“ÙÔ˘˜ ÓÙfiÈÔ˘˜”ÁÈ· ÙȘ ÏÈÁÔÛÙ¤˜ÂÚÁ·Û›Â˜; ∞˘Ùfi ›-Ó·È ÌÈ· ¿ÏÏË Â˘Ú¤-ˆ˜ ıˆÚÔ‡ÌÂÓË ¿-Ô„Ë Ô˘ ‰ÂÓ ÂÈ-‚‚·ÈÒÓÂÙ·È Û˘ÓÔ-ÏÈο ·fi Ù· ÁÂÁÔ-ÓfiÙ·. ™ÙË ÓfiÙÈ·∂˘ÚÒË, Ù¤ÙÔÈÔ˜·ÓÙ·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfi˜ È-Û¯‡ÂÈ ÌfiÓÔ ÁÈ· ÔÚÈ-Ṳ̂ÓÔ˘˜ Ù‡Ô˘˜ ·-ÓÂȉ›ÎÂ˘ÙˆÓ Î·È¯ÂÈÚˆÓ·ÎÙÈÎÒÓ ÂÚ-Á·ÛÈÒÓ. ™ÙȘ ¯Ò-Ú˜ Ì ˘„ËÏ‹ ·-

ÓÂÚÁ›·, fiˆ˜ Ë πÙ·Ï›· ‹ Ë πÛ·-Ó›·, ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È Û ¿ÏϘ ¯ÒÚ˜ Â-›Û˘, ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ Ù›ÓÔ˘Ó Ó··Ó·Ï¿‚Ô˘Ó ‚ÚÒÌÈΘ, ‰‡ÛÎÔÏÂ˜Î·È ÂÈΛӉ˘Ó˜ ‰Ô˘ÏÂȤ˜ Ô˘ ÙÔÂÁ¯ÒÚÈÔ ÂÚÁ·ÙÈÎfi ‰˘Ó·ÌÈÎfi ·Ú-ÓÂ›Ù·È Ó· οÓÂÈ. ŒÙÛÈ, ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿-ÛÙ˜ ‰ÂÓ ·›ÚÓÔ˘Ó ÙË ‰Ô˘ÏÂȿηÓÂÓfi˜, ·ÏÒ˜ ÁÂÌ›˙Ô˘Ó ¤Ó·ÎÂÓfi.

ªÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓ Ù¿ÍÂˆÓ ÙˆÓ ·-Ó¤ÚÁˆÓ, ÂÓÙÔ‡ÙÔȘ, ÔÈ ·ÏÏÔ‰·Ô›¤¯Ô˘Ó Ôχ ˘„ËÏ¿ ÔÛÔÛÙ¿. ™ÙÔµÂÚÔÏ›ÓÔ, ÛÙË °ÂÚÌ·Ó›·, ·Ú·-‰Â›ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ¯¿ÚÈÓ, 34% ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·-Ó·ÛÙÒÓ ‹Ù·Ó ¿ÓÂÚÁÔÈ ÛÙÔ Ù¤ÏÔ˜Ù˘ ‰ÂηÂÙ›·˜ ÙÔ˘ ‘90, ‰ÈÏ¿ÛÈÔÔÛÔÛÙfi ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÁÂÚÌ·ÓÔ‡˜Ôϛ٘. ™ÙË ¯ÒÚ· Û˘ÓÔÏÈο,38% °ÂÚÌ·ÓÒÓ ¿ÓÂÚÁˆÓ ‹Ù·Ó¯ˆÚ›˜ ÚÔÛfiÓÙ·, ¤Ó·ÓÙÈ 78%ÙˆÓ ·ÏÏÔ‰·ÒÓ. ∆Ô ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ·FARE (·ÍÈÔÏfiÁËÛË ÔÈÎÔÁÂÓÂÈ·-΋˜ ·ӤӈÛ˘) ÙÔÓ›˙ÂÈ fiÙÈ Ë ·-ÓÈηÓfiÙËÙ· ÔÌÈÏ›·˜ Ù˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜

Â›Ó·È ¤Ó· ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ÌÂÈÔÓ¤ÎÙËÌ·ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ÚfiÛ‚·ÛË ÛÙËÓ ··Û¯fi-ÏËÛË ·ÏÏ¿ Î·È fiÙÈ “ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿-ÛÙ˜, Î·È È‰È·›ÙÂÚ· ÔÈ Á˘Ó·›Î˜,·ÔÙ˘Á¯¿ÓÔ˘Ó Û˘¯Ó¿ Ó· Ì¿ıÔ˘ÓÙ· ÁÂÚÌ·ÓÈο ÂÂȉ‹ Ù· Ì·ı‹Ì·-Ù· ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Â›Ó·È ¿Ú· Ôχ ·-ÎÚÈ‚¿ ‹ ‰ÂÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔ.” ∞ÓÎ·È ÔÈ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔÈ Ó¤ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿-ÛÙ˜ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ ÁÂÓ¿˜ ÌÈÏÔ‡Ó È-ηÓÔÔÈËÙÈο ÙË ÁÏÒÛÛ· Ù˘ ¯Ò-Ú·˜ ˘Ô‰Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘˜, ‰ÂÓ Û˘Ì‚·›-ÓÂÈ ÙÔ ›‰ÈÔ Ì ÙÔ ÁÚ·Ùfi ÏfiÁÔ. ∏ÁÏÒÛÛ·, ÂÔ̤ӈ˜, ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂȤӷ ÂÌfi‰ÈÔ ÛÙËÓ ··Û¯fiÏËÛË.

¢Â‡ÙÂÚË ÁÂÓ¿, ‰Â‡ÙÂÚËηÙËÁÔÚ›·;

∏ηٿÛÙ·ÛË ÙˆÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ÁÂÓ¿˜ ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ ‹Ù·ÓÙÔ ı¤Ì· ÙˆÓ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·ÙÒÓ

ÙÔ˘ ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔ˜ Chip (Úfi-ÁÚ·ÌÌ· ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ¢Û˘ ·È‰ÈÒÓ)Ô˘ ÌÂϤÙËÛ·Ó Î·È Û˘Ó¤ÎÚÈÓ·ÓÙË “ÔÈfiÙËÙ· Ù˘ ˙ˆ‹˜” ÁÈ· ÌÂÙ·-Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ ÁÂÓ¿˜ Û ¤ÍȯÒÚ˜ (µ¤ÏÁÈÔ, ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, πÙ·Ï›·,°·ÏÏ›·, ∂Ï‚ÂÙ›· Î·È ÙÔ ∏ӈ̤ÓÔµ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ). √ ÛÙfi¯Ô˜ ‹Ù·Ó Ó· ÌÂ-ÙÚËı› Ô ·ÓÙ›ÎÙ˘Ô˜ ÙˆÓ ÔÏÈÙÈ-ÎÒÓ Âη›‰Â˘Û˘ ÛÙËÓ ÂÓۈ̿-ÙˆÛË. √È ÌÂÏÂÙËÙ¤˜ ÂÍ¤Ù·Û·Ó Â-›Û˘ Ë Û¯¤ÛË ÌÂٷ͇ Ù˘ ÛÙ¿-Û˘ ÔÚÈÛÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÊÔÚ¤ˆÓ (‰¿Ûη-ÏÔÈ, ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈÎÔ› ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁÔ›, ·ÛÙ˘-ÓÔÌ›·, Î.Ï....) Î·È ÙÔ˘ ‚·ıÌÔ‡ÂÓۈ̿وÛ˘. ∆Ô ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ·Chip Û˘ÌÂÚ·›ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ Ù· ÚÔ‚Ï‹-Ì·Ù· Ô˘ ·ÓÙÈÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ÔÈ ‰Â‡-ÙÂÚ˘ ÁÂÓ¿˜ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ÌÔ-ÚÔ‡Ó Ó· ÔÈΛÏÔ˘Ó ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈο ηÈÂÍ·ÚÙ¿Ù·È ·fi ÙÔ Â¿Ó, ˆ˜ ·È‰È¿,¿Ú¯ÈÛ·Ó ÙÔ Û¯ÔÏÂ›Ô ÛÙË ¯ÒÚ·ÚÔ¤ÏÂ˘Û‹˜ ÙÔ˘˜, ÁÂÓÓ‹ıËηÓÛÙË ¯ÒÚ· ˘Ô‰Ô¯‹˜ ÙÔ˘˜ ‹ ¤-Êı·Û·Ó ÂΛ Û ÌÈ· Ôχ Ó¤· Ë-ÏÈΛ·. ÕÏÏÔÈ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎÔ› ·Ú¿ÁÔ-ÓÙ˜ ‹Ù·Ó Â¿Ó ÔÈ ÔÈÎÔÁ¤ÓÂȤ˜

Η εύρεση εργασίας αποτελεί σηµαντικό παράγοντα για την ενσωµά-τωση των µεταναστών.

Page 47: European Expression - Issue 48

∂ ƒ ∂ À ¡ ∞ 45

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

ÙÔ˘˜ ›¯·Ó ˙‹ÛÂÈ ÛÙË ¯ÒÚ· ˘Ô-‰Ô¯‹˜ ÁÈ· ÌÂÁ¿ÏÔ ¯ÚÔÓÈÎfi ‰È¿-ÛÙËÌ· ‹ ›¯·Ó ÚÔÛÊ¿Ùˆ˜ ÂÁη-Ù·ÛÙ·ı›.

∂ÓÙÔ‡ÙÔȘ, ·ÓÂÍ¿ÚÙËÙ· ·fi ÙÔ‚·ıÌfi Î·È ÙËÓ Â˘ÎÔÏ›· ÂÓۈ̿-ÙˆÛ˘, ÔÈ Ó¤ÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ÚÔ-ÛÎÚÔ‡Ô˘Ó ÛÙ· ÂÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡ÓÙ·ÛÙÂÚÂfiÙ˘· “Ù˘ ÔÌ¿‰·˜ ÙÔ˘˜”.¢ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ·Û˘Ó‹ıÈÛÙÔ Ó· ‰È·È-ÛÙˆı› fiÙÈ ÔÈ ·ÂÚ›ÛÎÂÙ˜ ÔÏÈ-ÙÈΤ˜ ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·˜, Ô˘ ÚÔ¤Ú-¯ÔÓÙ·È ·fi ηÏÔÚÔ·›ÚÂÙ˜ ‰Ë-ÌfiÛȘ ·Ú¯¤˜, ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÙÂÏÈο ÌÈ··ÚÓËÙÈ΋ ›وÛË ÛÙËÓ ÂÈı˘-Ì›· ÙˆÓ ·È‰ÈÒÓ Í¤Ó˘ ÚԤϢ-Û˘ Ó· ÂÂÓ‰‡ÛÔ˘Ó ÛÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓˆ-Ó›· ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ˙Ô˘Ó. ŒÓ· ÛËÌ·-ÓÙÈÎfi ˙‹ÙËÌ· Â›Ó·È Ë ·Ó·ÁÓÒÚÈÛËÙˆÓ ‰È·ÊÔÚÒÓ Î·È Ô Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚÔ˜¯ÒÚÔ˜ ÁÈ· Ó· Û˘Ì‚Â› ·˘Ùfi ›ӷÈÙÔ Û¯ÔÏ›Ô.

¢È‰·Ûηϛ·-ÂÓۈ̿وÛË

∂Ó· ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· Ô˘ ÙÈÙÏÔ-ÊÔÚÂ›Ù·È Effectiveness ofNational Integration Strate-

gies Towards Second GenerationYouth (∞ÔÙÂÏÂÛÌ·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙˆÓ∂ıÓÈÎÒÓ ™ÙÚ·ÙËÁÈÎÒÓ ∂Óۈ̿-ÙˆÛ˘ Ù˘ ¡ÂÔÏ·›·˜ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ÁÂÓ¿˜) ÌÂϤÙËÛ ÙÔÓ ·ÓÙ›ÎÙ˘ÔÙ˘ ‰È‰·Ûηϛ·˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÓۈ̿-ÙˆÛË ÛÙË °·ÏÏ›·, ÙË °ÂÚÌ·Ó›·Î·È ÙÔ ∏ӈ̤ÓÔ µ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ. ∏ °·Ï-Ï›· Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Ó· ·Ú¤¯ÂÈ ¤Ó· ÂÎ-·È‰Â˘ÙÈÎfi Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Ô˘ ›ӷÈÛ¯ÂÙÈο ÂÈÙ˘¯¤˜ ÛÙÔ Ó· ÂÓÛˆ-Ì·ÙÒÛÂÈ ÙÔ˘˜ Ó¤Ô˘˜ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜– ÔÈ ‰È·ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÛÙ· ·ÓÂÈÛÙËÌÈ·-ο ·ÔÙÂϤÛÌ·Ù· ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓÛÔ˘‰·ÛÙÒÓ Í¤Ó˘ ÚԤϢÛË˜Î·È ÙˆÓ ˘ËÎfiˆÓ Â›Ó·È Û·ÊÒ˜ ÌÈ-ÎÚfiÙÂÚ˜ ·’fi,ÙÈ Û ¿ÏϘ ¯Ò-Ú˜. ∞ÎfiÌ· Ë ·ÓÂÚÁ›· ÙˆÓ ÓÂÒÓÁÂÓÈο ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ ˘„ËÏ‹ Î·È Â›-Ó·È Ôχ ˘„ËÏfiÙÂÚË ·fi Ù˘°ÂÚÌ·Ó›·˜, ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·ÙÔ˜ ¯¿-

ÚÈÓ. √ ÏfiÁÔ˜ ›Ûˆ ·fi ·˘Ùfi Ê·›-ÓÂÙ·È Ó· Â›Ó·È fiÙÈ ÙÔ Èfi ·Î·‰Ë-Ì·˚Îfi Á·ÏÏÈÎfi Û‡ÛÙËÌ· Ù·ÈÚÈ¿-˙ÂÈ ÏÈÁfiÙÂÚÔ ÛÙËÓ Ú·ÁÌ·ÙÈÎfi-ÙËÙ· Ù˘ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈο ÂÓÂÚÁ‹˜˙ˆ‹˜ ·fi ÙË ÁÂÚÌ·ÓÈ΋ Âη›-‰Â˘ÛË, Ë ÔÔ›· ÂÛÙÈ¿˙ÂÈ ÂÚÈÛ-ÛfiÙÂÚÔ ÛÙËÓ Â·ÁÁÂÏÌ·ÙÈ΋ ÂÓ-ۈ̿وÛË. ∂ÓÙÔ‡ÙÔȘ, Ê¿ÈÓÂÙ·ÈfiÙÈ ÛÙÔ ∏ӈ̤ÓÔ µ·Û›ÏÂÈÔ ÔÈ ÌÂ-Ù·Ó¿ÛÙ˜ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚ˘ ÁÂÓ¿˜ ·ÓÙÈ-ÌÂÙˆ›˙Ô˘Ó ‰˘ÛÎÔϛ˜ ÛÙÔ Ó·‰È·Ú·ÁÌ·Ù¢ÙÔ‡Ó ÙȘ ‰˘Ó·Ùfi-ÙËÙ˜ ··Û¯fiÏËÛ˘ ÙÔ˘˜: Ù·ÙÚ›· ٤ٷÚÙ· Ù˘ ‚ÚÂÙ·ÓÈ΋˜ ÓÂ-ÔÏ·›·˜ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÂÚÁ·Û›·, ÂÓÒ ËÏÂÈÔ„ËÊ›· ‚ÚÂÙ·ÓÒÓ ÁÂÓÓË̤-ÓˆÓ ÛÙËÓ πÓ‰›· Î·È ¶·ÎÈÛÙ·ÓÒÓfi¯È.

¶ÔÏÈÙÈΤ˜ Î·È Ú·ÎÙÈΤ˜

∂ÎÙfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ Û¯ÔÏÈÎfi Û‡-ÛÙËÌ·, ÔÈ Â˘Î·Èڛ˜ Î·È Ù·ÂÌfi‰È· ÛÙËÓ ÂÓۈ̿وÛË

ÔÈΛÏÏÔ˘Ó ·fi ÌÈ· ¯ÒÚ· Û ¿Ï-ÏË, ·ÏÏ¿ fi¯È ¿ÓÙ·, fiˆ˜ ηÓ›˜ı· Ê·ÓÙ¿˙ÔÓÙ·Ó. ∆Ô ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ·Case ‰Â›¯ÓÂÈ fiÙÈ, ·Ó ηÈ, Û ÁÂÓÈ-Τ˜ ÁÚ·Ì̤˜, Ë ÂÓۈ̿وÛË Â˘-ÓÔÂ›Ù·È ÛÙË ™Ô˘Ë‰›·, Â›Ó·È ‰‡-ÛÎÔÏÔ Ó· ÂÊ·ÚÌÔÛÙ›. ∞˘Ùfi Û˘Ì-‚·›ÓÂÈ Î˘Ú›ˆ˜ ÂÂȉ‹ ÔÈ ‰È·‰Èη-

ۛ˜ Ì›ÛıˆÛ˘ ··ÈÙÔ‡Ó ÁÓÒÛËÙ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Â›Ó·È ¤Ú· ·fiÙÔ Â›Â‰Ô ÙˆÓ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚˆÓÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙÒÓ. ™ÙËÓ πÙ·Ï›·, Ë ÂÓ-ۈ̿وÛË ÙˆÓ ·ÏÏÔ‰·ÒÓ ‰È¢-ÎÔχÓÂÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ ·Ú·ÔÈÎÔÓÔ-Ì›· Î·È ·Ú·ÙËÚÂ›Ù·È ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂ-ÚË ·ÓÔ¯‹ ·’fi,ÙÈ Û ¿ÏϘ ¯ÒÚ˜(fiˆ˜ Ë πÛ·Ó›·) fiÔ˘ ˘¿Ú¯Ô˘ÓÏÈÁfiÙÂÚÔÈ ÌÂÙ·Ó¿ÛÙ˜. ∂ÓÙÔ‡-ÙÔȘ, ÔÈ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚ˜ Â˘Úˆ·˚-Τ˜ ΢‚ÂÚÓ‹ÛÂȘ ÂÍÂÙ¿˙Ô˘Ó ÙÔı¤Ì· “ÙˆÓ ÔÛÔÛÙÒÛˆӔ Î·È ıÂ-ˆÚÔ‡Ó fiÙÈ Ù· ÌÂÙ·Ó·ÛÙ¢ÙÈο ·-Ì·Ù· Ú¤ÂÈ Ó· ÂÚÈÔÚÈÛÙÔ‡Ó Ì¤-¯ÚȘ fiÙÔ˘ Ó· ÌÔÚ¤ÛÔ˘Ó Ó· ÂÓ-ۈ̷وıÔ‡Ó ÔÈ ‹‰Ë ·ÚfiÓÙ˜·ÏÏÔ‰·Ô›.

°› ·˘Ùfi, ÔÏϤ˜ ¯ÒÚ˜ ÂÊ·Ú-Ìfi˙Ô˘Ó ÙÔÓ Î·ÓfiÓ· fiÙÈ Ë ˘ËÎÔ-fiÙËÙ· ·ÔÎÙ¿Ù·È ÂÎ ÁÂÓÂÙ‹˜ ÛÙÔ¤‰·ÊÔ˜ ÙÔ˘ Û¯ÂÙÈÎÔ‡ ÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘˜(jus soli), ÂÓÙ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ·˜ Ì ·˘ÙfiÓÙÔÓ ÙÚfiÔ ÙÔÓ ÂÁÎÏÈÌ·ÙÈÛÌfi ÛÙˉȷ‰Èηۛ· Ù˘ ÂÓۈ̿وÛ˘.°È· ÙÔ˘˜ ÂÚ¢ÓËÙ¤˜ ÛÙÔ Úfi-ÁÚ·ÌÌ· Effnatis, Ô˘ ÌÂϤÙËÛÂÙËÓ ÂÓۈ̿وÛË Î·È ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓˆ-ÓÈÎÔÔÏÈÙÈÛÙÈ΋ ·Ó·ÁÓÒÚÈÛË ÙˆÓ·ÏÏÔ‰·ÒÓ, ·˘Ùfi Â›Ó·È ÌfiÓÔ ¤-Ó·˜ ·Ú¿ÁÔÓÙ·˜ – ·Ó Î·È ÛËÌ·-ÓÙÈÎfi˜ – ÛÙËÓ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË, ηÈfi¯È ·˘ÙÔÛÎÔfi˜.

Οι µετανάστες αντιµετωπίζουν δυσκολίες εκµάθησης της γλώσσας.

Page 48: European Expression - Issue 48

46 µ π µ § π √ ¶ ∞ ƒ √ À ™ π ∞ ™ ∏

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

µÈ‚Ï›Ô ÁÈ· ÙË ÁÏÒÛÛ·Î·È ÙË ˙ˆ‹ ÙˆÓ µÏ¿¯ˆÓÛÙËÓ ◊ÂÈÚÔ

™˘ÁÁڷʤ·˜: ÃÚ˘Û¿ÓıË ªÔ‡˙·, ¤Î‰ÔÛË: ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË, ∞ı‹Ó·2002, EÀƒø:18

∆Ô ‚È‚Ï›Ô ·˘Ùfi Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ŒÎÊÚ·Û˘ ÚÔ‚·›ÓÂÈ Û ηٷÁÚ·-Ê‹, ÌÂϤÙË Î·È ·ÚÔ˘Û›·ÛË ÙˆÓ

Û˘ÓËıÂÈÒÓ Î·È Âı›ÌˆÓ Ù˘ ηıËÌÂÚÈÓ‹˜˙ˆ‹˜ ÙˆÓ µÏ¿¯ˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ¶·Ï·ÈÔ¯ˆÚ›Ô˘™˘ÚÚ¿ÎÔ˘ Ù˘ ∏›ÚÔ˘ ÛÙ· ÚÒÙ· 60¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÙÔ˘ 20Ô˘ ·ÈÒÓ·. ∆Ô ı¤Ì· Ù˘ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜, ÙˆÓ ‚Ï¿¯ÈΈÓ, ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÂÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎfi ̤ÚÔ˜ Ù˘ fiÏ˘ ÂÚÁ·Û›·˜,ηıÒ˜ Ë ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›· ÙÔ˘ ™˘ÚÚ¿ÎÔ˘ ˘‹Ú-Í ÌÈ· ÌÈÎÚ‹ Î·È ÎÏÂÈÛÙ‹ ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·, Ì È-Û¯˘ÚÔ‡˜ ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈÎÔ‡˜ ‰ÂÛÌÔ‡˜ ηıÒ˜Î·È Â·Ê¤˜ Ì ÙÔÓ ¤Íˆ ÎfiÛÌÔ. ∂ÈϤ-ÔÓ, Ë ÂÚÁ·Û›· ·˘Ù‹ ÚÔÛÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ ·Îfi-ÌË È‰È·›ÙÂÚË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÁÈ·Ù› Ù· ‚Ï¿¯Èη,ˆ˜ ÁÓˆÛÙfiÓ, ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ÁÚ·Ù‹ ÁÏÒÛ-Û·, ·ÏÏ¿ ¤¯Ô˘Ó Ûˆı› ¯¿ÚÈÓ Ù˘ Ì·-ÎÚ·›ˆÓ˘ ÚÔÊÔÚÈ΋˜ ·Ú¿‰ÔÛ˘.ŒÙÛÈ ÙÔ ‚È‚Ï›Ô ·˘Ùfi ÛÙԯ‡ÂÈ ÛÙË ‰È·-Ù‹ÚËÛË ÙˆÓ µÏ¿¯ÈΈÓ, ˆ˜ ÌÈ·˜ ÙÔÈ΋˜ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Î·È ÙÔ˘ Û˘Ó·ÙfiÌÂÓÔ˘ ÔÏÈ-ÙÈÛÌÔ‡.

™˘ÁÁڷʤ·˜ ÙÔ˘ ‚È‚Ï›Ô˘ Â›Ó·È ËµÏ¿¯· ÃÚ˘Û¿ÓıË ªÔ‡˙· ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Ô-Ô›· Ë ‚Ï¿¯ÈÎË Â›Ó·È ÌËÙÚÈ΋ ÁÏÒÛÛ·.™Ù· ·Ì¤ÙÚËÙ· Ù·Í›‰È· Ù˘ ÛÙ· ¿ÁÔÓ·Î·È ÂÁηٷÏÂÈÌ̤ӷ ÁÔÓÂ˚ο ‰¿ÊË, Ù·ÁÂÌ¿Ù· ·È‰Èο ‚ÈÒÌ·Ù· Î·È Î·Ù·ÎÏ˘-ÛÌÈ·›· Û˘Ó·ÈÛı‹Ì·Ù·, ÛÙËÓ ÙÂÚ¿ÛÙÈ·ÚÔÛ¿ıÂÈ· Ô˘ η٤‚·ÏÏ ÁÈ· ÙËÛ˘ÏÏÔÁ‹ ÙÔ˘ ˘ÏÈÎÔ‡, ÙËÓ Ù·ÍÈÓfiÌËÛËÎ·È ÙËÓ ·ÍÈÔÔ›ËÛË ÙÔ˘, ÔÊ›ÏÂÙ·È ÙÂ-ÏÈÎÒ˜ ·˘Ù‹ Ë ¤Î‰ÔÛË, Ô˘ Ë ∂˘Úˆ·˚-΋ ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË ·Ú·‰›‰ÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË ÙԢ¢·ÈÛıËÙÔÔÈË̤ÓÔ˘ ·Ó·ÁÓˆÛÙÈÎÔ‡ÎÔÈÓÔ‡

∆Ô ‚È‚Ï›Ô ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÈ Ù· ÂÍ‹˜ ÎÂ-Ê¿Ï·È· : ¶ÚfiÏÔÁÔ˜, 1. ∂ÈÛ·ÁˆÁ‹, 2.¶·Ï·ÈÔ¯ÒÚÈ ™˘ÚÚ¿ÎÔ˘, 3. ∏ ‚Ï¿¯ÈÎËÁÏÒÛÛ·, 4. ÷ڷÎÙ‹Ú·˜ – „˘¯ÔÛ‡ÓıÂ-ÛË, 5. ∆ÚfiÔ˜ ˙ˆ‹˜ : ‰Òı Î›ıÂ, 6. ∆Ô-ˆÓ‡ÌÈ·, 7. ∫·ÙÔÈ˘, 8. ™ÎÂ‡Ë – ÂÚ-Á·Ï›·, 9. ¢È·ÙÚÔÊ‹, 10. ∂Ó‰˘Ì·Û›·,11. ∞Û¯Ôϛ˜, 12. °¤ÓÓËÛË – ‚¿ÙÈÛË,13. ∞ÚÚ·‚ÒÓ·˜ – Á¿ÌÔ˜, 14. £¿Ó·ÙÔ˜,15. ∂ÎÎÏËۛ˜, 16. °ÈÔÚÙ¤˜ Î·È ·ÓËÁ‡-ÚÈ·, 17. ∆Ú·ÁÔ‡‰È· Î·È ¯ÔÚÔ›, 18. ∞fi-ÎÚȘ, 19. ¶·È¯Ó›‰È·, 20. µÏ¿¯Èη ·-ڷ̇ıÈ·, 21. ¶·ÚÔÈ̛˜, 22. ¶ÚÔÏ‹-„ÂȘ, 23. ∂˘¯¤˜ Î·È Î·Ù¿Ú˜, 24. §ÂÍÈ-ÏfiÁÈÔ, 25. µÈ‚ÏÈÔÁÚ·Ê›·

∏ ¤Ú¢ӷ Î·È Ë ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË Û˘Ì-‚¿ÏÏÔ˘Ó (1) ·ÊÂÓfi˜ ÛÙËÓ Î·Ï‡ÙÂÚËÁÓÒÛË Î·È Î·Ù·ÓfiËÛË ÌÈ·˜ ·ÎfiÌË ˙ˆ-ÓÙ·Ó‹˜ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Î·È ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú·˜ ÛÙÔÓ

ÂÏÏËÓÈÎfi ¯ÒÚÔ, ÛÙËÓ ·ÚfiÙÚ˘ÓÛË fi-ÛˆÓ ÔÌÈÏÔ‡Ó µÏ¿¯Èη Ó· ‰È·ÙËÚ‹ÛÔ˘Ó˙ˆÓÙ·Ó‹ ÙË ÁÏÒÛÛ· ÙÔ˘˜ Î·È ÛÙËÓ Â-ÍÔÈΛˆÛË ÂÓfi˜ ¢ڇÙÂÚÔ˘ ÎÔÈÓÔ‡ ÌÂÙË ‚Ï¿¯ÈÎË ÁÏÒÛÛ·, (2) ·ÊÂÙ¤ÚÔ˘ÛÙËÓ ·Ó¿‰ÂÈÍË Î·È ÂÓ›Û¯˘ÛË ÙÔ˘ Ôχ-ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÈÎÔ‡ ¯·Ú·ÎÙ‹Ú· Ù˘ Û‡Á¯ÚÔ-Ó˘ ∂ÏÏ¿‰Ô˜ Î·È ‚‚·›ˆ˜ ÛÙËÓ ÚÔ‚Ô-Ï‹ Ù˘ ÔÏ˘ÌÔÚÊ›·˜ Ô˘ ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ Ì¤Û·ÛÙËÓ ›‰È· ÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÓˆÛË.

ŒÓ· ̤ÚÔ˜ ÙˆÓ ·Ôχو˜ ·Ó·Áη›-ˆÓ ‰··ÓÒÓ ÁÈ· ÙË ÌÂϤÙË ÙÔ˘ ı¤Ì·-ÙÔ˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ¤Î‰ÔÛË ÙÔ˘ ‚È‚Ï›Ô˘ ηχ-ÊıËΠ̠ÙËÓ ÔχÙÈÌË Û˘Ó‰ÚÔÌ‹ Ù˘∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘.

∆Ô ÙÂÏÈÎfi ·ÔÙ¤ÏÂÛÌ· ˘ÂÚ‚·›ÓÂÈÔÛÔÙÈο Î·È ÔÈÔÙÈο ÙȘ ÚÔÛ‰ÔÎ›Â˜Î·È Ô‰ËÁ› Û ÌÈ· ÂΉÔÙÈ΋ ·Ú·ÁˆÁ‹Ë ÔÔ›· Û˘Ì‚¿ÏÏÂÈ ÛÙËÓ ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË Ù˘ÌÓ‹Ì˘ ÂÓfi˜ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÏÈÙÈÛÌÔ‡˜Ô˘ Û‹ÌÂÚ· ˘Ê›ÛÙ·ÓÙ·È ÈÛ¯˘Ú‹ ›ÂÛËÏfiÁˆ ÙˆÓ Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓˆÓ Û˘ÓıËÎÒÓ ÙfiÛÔÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰· fiÛÔ Î·È ÛÙËÓ ∂˘ÚÒË Î·ÈÙÔÓ ÎfiÛÌÔ. ∆Ô ·Ôχو˜ ηٷÓÔËÙfiÂӉȷʤÚÔÓ Î·È ·ÔÊ·ÛÈÛÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· fi-ÏˆÓ Ì·˜ ÁÈ· ÙË ‰È·Ù‹ÚËÛË Ù˘ ÂÏÏËÓÈ-΋˜ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ ̤۷ Û ÌÈ· ∂˘ÚÒË fi-Ô˘ Û‡ÓÙÔÌ· Ë ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ ÁÏÒÛÛ· ı· Ô-ÌÈÏÂ›Ù·È ÌfiÓÔ ·fi 12-13 ÂÎ. ÌÂٷ͇450 ÂÎ. ηÙԛΈÓ, ÂÁηÏ› fiÏÔ˘˜ Ì·˜ÁÈ· ÙÔ˘˜ ›‰ÈÔ˘˜ ·ÎÚÈ‚Ò˜ ÏfiÁÔ˘˜ ·Ú¯‹˜Ó· ˘ÂÚ·ÛÈÛıԇ̠fiϘ ÙȘ ÌÂÈÔÓÔÙÈ-Τ˜ ÁÏÒÛÛ˜ Î·È ÙȘ ÙÔÈΤ˜ ‰È·Ï¤-ÎÙÔ˘˜ Ô˘ ·ÎfiÌË ‰È·ÛÒ˙ÔÓÙ·È ÛÙË ÛË-ÌÂÚÈÓ‹ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·, ÌÈ· ·fi ÙȘ Ôԛ˜ ›-Ó·È Ù· ‚Ï¿¯Èη Ô˘ ·ÔÙÂÏÔ‡Ó ÙÔ ı¤Ì··˘Ù‹˜ Ù˘ ¤Î‰ÔÛ˘. ∏ Û˘ÓÂÈÛÊÔÚ¿ ÙÔ˘¤ÚÁÔ˘ ·˘ÙÔ‡ ÛÙȘ ÂÈÛً̘ Ù˘ Ï·Ô-ÁÚ·Ê›·˜ Î·È Ù˘ ÁψÛÛÔÏÔÁ›·˜ ·ÏÏ¿Î·È Ù˘ ÈÛÙÔÚ›·˜, Ù˘ ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈ΋˜ ·Ó-ıÚˆÔÏÔÁ›·˜ Î·È Ù˘ ÂıÓÔÁÚ·Ê›·˜, ›-Ó·È ÈÛÙ‡ԢÌ ˘·ÚÎÙ‹.

ªÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ·ÓÙ·ÌÔÈ‚‹ ÁÈ· ÙË µÏ¿-¯· Û˘ÁÁڷʤ· Î·È ÙÔÓ Û‡ÓÙÚÔÊÔ Ù˘‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚ› Ó· ˘¿ÚÍÂÈ ·fi ÙËÓ ›‰È· ÙËÓÂÚ·›ˆÛË ÙÔ˘ ¤ÚÁÔ˘ ÙÔ˘˜, ÂÓfi˜ ¤ÚÁÔ˘˙ˆ‹˜ Î·È ÙËÓ ·fiÙÈÛË ÙÈÌ‹˜ Û ¤Ó·ÓÔÏÈÙÈÛÌfi Ô˘ ÔÈ ÓÂfiÙÂÚÔÈ, ˘ÂÚ·ÛÈ-ÛÙ¤˜ ÌÈ·˜ ÔχÌÔÚÊ˘, ÂχıÂÚ˘ ηÈÏÔ˘Ú·ÏÈÛÙÈ΋˜ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Ô˘ ÂȉÈÒ-ÎÂÈ ÙËÓ ÂÓfiÙËÙ· Ù˘ ̤۷ ·fi fiψÓÙˆÓ ÂȉÒÓ ÙȘ ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎfiÙËÙ˜ Ù˘,ı· ı¤Ï·Ì ӷ ÙÔÓ ‰Ô‡Ì ӷ ÂÈ‚ÈÒÓÂÈ,Ó· ‰È·ÙËÚÂ›Ù·È Î·È Ó· Û˘Ó¯›˙ÂÈ ˘ÂÚ‹-Ê·Ó· ÙË Ì·ÎÚ·›ˆÓË ‰È·‰ÚÔÌ‹ ÙÔ˘ ̤-Û· ÛÙËÓ ÈÛÙÔÚ›· Î·È Ì¤Û· ÛÙÔÓ ÊÈÏfiÍÂ-ÓÔ, ·ÓÂÎÙÈÎfi Î·È ÔÏ˘Û˘ÏÏÂÎÙÈÎfi ÂÏÏË-ÓÈÎfi ¯ÒÚÔ. ∂Í¿ÏÏÔ˘ Ë ÂÓfiÙËÙ· ̤۷ ·-fi ÙË ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ‰ÂÓ Â›Ó·È ·-ÏÒ˜ ÌÈ· ¤ÌÌÔÓË È‰¤· Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ŒÎÊÚ·Û˘ ·fi ÙÔ 1989 ÔfiÙ ȉڇıË-ÎÂ, ı· Â›Ó·È Î·Ù¿ ˆ˜ Ê·›ÓÂÙ·È Î·È ËÚÔÌÂÙˆ›‰· Ù˘ Ó¤·˜ ∂˘ÚÒ˘ Ô˘·Ó·‰‡ÂÙ·È Û‹ÌÂÚ· ̤۷ ·fi ÙË ™˘Ó¤-Ï¢ÛË Ô˘ ı· Ô‰ËÁ‹ÛÂÈ Û ¤Ó· Â˘Úˆ-·˚Îfi ™‡ÓÙ·ÁÌ·.

∏ ∞Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË ÌÈ·˜¶ÚˆÙfiÙ˘Ë˜ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋˜√ÌÔÛÔÓ‰›ˆÛ˘

™˘ÁÁڷʤ·˜: Dusan Sidjanski∂ΉfiÛÂȘ: ¶··˙‹ÛË, 2002

∏ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷ΋ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋ Ù˘∂˘ÚÒ˘ ˘‹ÚÍ ¿ÓÙ· ÛËÌ›ԷӷÊÔÚ¿˜ Î·È ËÁ‹ ¤ÌÓ¢Û˘

ÁÈ· ÙÔ Â˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ÔÈÎÔ‰fiÌËÌ·. ∫ÔÚ˘-Ê·›ÔÈ Â˘Úˆ·›ÔÈ ÔÏÈÙÈÎÔ› ÂÈηÏÔ‡-ÓÙ·È Ù· ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›· ¯ÚfiÓÈ· ÙËÓ ÔÌÔ-ÛÔӉȷ΋ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË ÁÈ· ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ-·˚΋ ¤ÓˆÛË. ŸÌˆ˜ ·˘Ù‹ Ë È‰¤·-Û‡Ï-ÏË„Ë ·Ú·Ì¤ÓÂÈ ÂÏ¿¯ÈÛÙ· ÁÓˆÛÙ‹ÛÙÔ˘˜ Â˘Úˆ·›Ô˘˜ Ôϛ٘. ∆Ô ¤ÚÁÔÙÔ˘ ηıËÁËÙ‹ ÙÔ˘ ¶·Ó/Ì›Ô˘ Ù˘ °Â-Ó‡˘ Dusan Sidjanski ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔ ÂÍ·È-ÚÂÙÈÎfi ÏÂÔÓ¤ÎÙËÌ· Ó· ‰È·ÊˆÙ›˙ÂÈÎ·È Ó· ÂÓÙ¿ÛÛÂÈ ÛÙË Û‡Á¯ÚÔÓË Ú·Á-Ì·ÙÈÎfiÙËÙ· ÙȘ ÔÏϷϤ˜ Ï¢ڤ˜Ù˘ ÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›ˆÛ˘, ÛËÌÂÈÒÓÂÈ ÛÙÔÓÚfiÏÔÁfi ÙÔ˘ Ô ÚÒËÓ ¶Úfi‰ÚÔ˜ Ù˘∂˘Ú. ∂ÈÙÚÔ‹˜ ∑·Î ¡ÙÂÏfiÚ.

∏ ∂∂ ‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È Û‹ÌÂÚ· ÂÁÎψ‚È-Ṳ̂ÓË ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· Û ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙÈÙÈı¤ÌÂ-Ó˜ Ù¿ÛÂȘ, ÔÈ Ôԛ˜ ·Ó·Ù‡ÛÛÔÓÙ·ÈÛÙÔ˘˜ ÎfiÏÔ˘˜ Ù˘, ÙËÓ ÎÔÈÓÔÙÈ΋‰˘Ó·ÌÈ΋ Ô˘ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌ› ÌÈ· ÎÔÈÓfiÙË-Ù· Ì ÔÌÔÛÔӉȷ΋ Ù¿ÛË Î·È ÙËÓ‰È·Î˘‚ÂÚÓËÙÈ΋ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· ÁÈ· Ù·ı¤Ì·Ù· Â͈ÙÂÚÈ΋˜ Î·È ÂÛˆÙÂÚÈ΋˜ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜. ∏ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÚÔÔÙÈ΋‚Ú›ÛÎÂÙ·È ÛÙËÓ ËÌÂÚ‹ÛÈ· ‰È¿Ù·ÍË ÙË˜Û˘˙‹ÙËÛ˘ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ì¤ÏÏÔÓ Ù˘ ∂˘ÚÒ-˘. ∫È ·fi ·˘Ù‹ ÙËÓ ¿Ô„Ë, ÙÔ ‚È-‚Ï›Ô ÙÔ˘ Sidjanski Â›Ó·È Î·È ÂÍ·ÈÚÂÙÈ-ο ›ηÈÚÔ. ™‡Ìʈӷ Ì ÚÙÔÓ Û˘Á-Áڷʤ· Ë ÔÌÔÛÔÓ‰›ˆÛË ·Ú·Ô˘ÛÈ¿-˙ÂÙ·È ˆ˜ Ë Ï¤ÔÓ Î·Ù¿ÏÏËÏË ÌÔÚÊ‹ÎÔÈÓˆÓÈ΋˜ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛ˘ ÚÔÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘·Ó Û˘ÁÎÂÓÙÚˆıÔ‡Ó ÔÈ Â˘Úˆ·›ÔÈ Ì¤-Û· Û ÌÈ· ¤ÓˆÛË Ô˘ ı· ÂÁÁ˘¿Ù·ÈÙËÓ ÂıÓÈ΋, ÂÚÈÊÂÚÂȷ΋ Î·È ÙÔÈ΋ٷ˘ÙfiÙËÙ· Û ·fiÏ˘ÙË ÂÓ·ÚÌfiÓÈÛËÌ ÙËÓ ·Ó·Áη›· ·ÏÏËÏÂÍ¿ÚÙËÛË Î·ÈÙËÓ ÂȂ‚·›ˆÛË Ù˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋˜Ù·˘ÙfiÙËÙ·˜ ·¤ÓÙ·ÓÙÈ ÛÙËÓ ·ÁÎÔ-ÛÌÈÔÔ›ËÛË.

∆Ô ‚È‚Ï›Ô ÙÔ˘ Sidjanski ˘ÔÁÚ·Ì-Ì›˙ÂÈ, ·ÊÔ‡ ÚÔËÁÔ˘Ì¤Óˆ˜ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÂ-ÏÂÛ›‰Èη ηÙÔ¯˘ÚÒÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ··Ú·›ÙË-ÙË ‰ÈηÈÔÏÔÁÈÙÈ΋ ‚¿ÛË, ÔȘ ·fi ÙȘÔÏ˘¿ÚÈı̘ Ï¢ڤ˜ ÙÔ˘ Â˘Úˆ·˚-ÎÔ‡ ıÂÛÌÈÎÔ‡ ÔÈÎÔ‰ÔÌ‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÙÔ Î¿-ÓÔ˘Ó Ó· ÚÔÛÔÌÔÈ¿˙ÂÈ Ì ٷ ÔÌÔ-ÛÔӉȷο Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·Ù·, ›Ù ÚfiÎÂÈ-Ù·È ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ¤ÓÙ·ÍË Û ÎÔÈÓÔ‡˜ ηÓfi-Ó˜ ›Ù ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ó·˙‹ÙËÛË ‰›Î·È˘ È-ÛÔÚÚÔ›·˜ ÌÂٷ͇ ÌÂÁ¿ÏˆÓ Î·È ÌÈ-ÎÚÒÓ ÎÚ·ÙÒÓ.

Page 49: European Expression - Issue 48

✔ ∞¡∞¢∞™ø™∏ – ∫Àƒπ∞∫∏6 ª∞ƒ∆π√À 2003

∆ËÓ ∫˘Úȷ΋ 6 ª·ÚÙ›Ô˘2003 ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒıËΠ·fiÙËÓ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ‘∂ÎÊÚ·ÛË –

∞Ó·ÙÔÏÈ΋ ∞ÙÙÈ΋ ·Ó·‰¿ÛˆÛËÛÙË ¶ÂÓÙ¤ÏË, ÛÙÔ ‡„Ô˜ ÙÔ˘ ∞Á›-Ô˘ ¶¤ÙÚÔ˘. ∏ ·Ó·‰¿ÛˆÛË ¤ÁÈÓÂÌ ÙËÓ ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË ÙÔ˘ ¢‹ÌÔ˘Ù˘ ¡. ª¿ÎÚ˘, ηıÒ˜ Î·È Ì ÙË‚Ô‹ıÂÈ· ÙˆÓ ∂˘Úˆ·›ˆÓ ÂıÂÏÔ-ÓÙÒÓ Ô˘ ÊÈÏÔÍÂÓÔ‡ÓÙ·È ·fiÙËÓ ÔÚÁ¿ÓˆÛË Û˘ÌÌÂÙ¤¯ÔÓÙ·˜ÛÙÔ ÚfiÁÚ·ÌÌ· Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚-΋˜ ŒÓˆÛ˘ «∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ∂ıÂ-ÏÔÓÙÈ΋ ÀËÚÂÛ›· ÁÈ· Ó¤Ô˘˜»,Î·È ·›ÚÓÔ˘Ó Ì¤ÚÔ˜ Û ˘ÚÔÂÈ-Ù‹ÚËÛË, ÛÂ Û˘ÏÏÔÁ‹ ‰·ÛÈÎÒÓÛfiÚˆÓ Î·È Û ·Ó·‰·ÛÒÛÂȘ.

∏ Û˘ÌÌÂÙÔ¯‹ ÛÙËÓ ·Ó·‰¿Ûˆ-ÛË ‹Ù·Ó Î·È Ê¤ÙÔ˜ Ôχ ÌÂÁ¿ÏË.™ÙËÓ ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ Ê˘Ù‡ıËÎ·Ó ÂÚ›-Ô˘ 2500 ‰¤ÓÙÚ· Î·È ı¿ÌÓÔÈ ËÏÈ-Λ·˜ ÂÓfi˜ ¤ÙÔ˘˜, Ù· ÔÔ›· ÚÔ-Û¤ÊÂÚÂ Ë ¢È‡ı˘ÓÛË ∞Ó·‰·ÛÒ-ÛÂˆÓ ÙÔ˘ ÀÔ˘ÚÁ›Ԣ °ÂˆÚ-Á›·˜. ∏ ·ÓˆÙ¤Úˆ ‰Ú¿ÛË Ú·Á-Ì·ÙÔÔÈ‹ıËΠ̠˘Â‡ı˘ÓÔ ÙÔÓ∫ÒÛÙ· ™ÙÚ¿ÌÈ, Î·È ‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒ-ıËΠÁÈ· 4Ë Û˘Ó¯‹ ¯ÚÔÓÈ¿ Ì Â-ÈÙ˘¯›· ·fi ÙËÓ ∂.∂∫.∞¡.∞.™Ùfi¯Ô˜ Ù˘ Â›Ó·È Ë Û˘ÓÙ‹ÚËÛËÎ·È ÚÔÛÙ·Û›· ÙÔ˘ ‰¿ÛÔ˘˜ ÛÙËÓ¢ڇÙÂÚË ÂÚÈÔ¯‹ Ù˘ ∞Ó·ÙÔÏÈ-΋˜ ∞ÙÙÈ΋˜.

✔ Press releaseAthanase Papandropoulosawarded with press - prize 2002in Antwerpe

On Sunday, 2nd of February,the Greek journalist andformer International Presi-

dent of the Association ofEuropean Journalists, AthanasePapandropoulos, was awardedwith the press-prize 2002 of the“Mouvement pour les Etats UnisEuropÈens” in Antwerpe(Belgium). Every year the Flamish“Movement for the United States

of Europe” - part of the Pan-European Movement - honoresdistinguished European persona-lities, working in the political,economic, cultural und journalisticfield, with this award “Pro Pace etUnitate, e meritu et honoriscausa”, giving the honored perso-nality the title of a member of the“SÈnat d’Honneur EuropÈen”.Athanase Papandropoulos is thefirst Greek journalist, honored inthe 42 years old history of theFlamish Movement.

This year the ceremony tookplace in the presence of Leo Tin-demann, former Primeminister ofBelgium, Wim Kok, formerPrimeminister of the Nether-lands, Hans-Gerd Poettering,German President of the Christ-ian-Democrat Group in the Euro-pean Parliament, Karl vonWogau, also German Deputy inthe Parliament and so called “Fa-ther of the Interior Marked” andother European personalities.

Horst Keller, well-known for-mer TV-journalist in Germany,awarded with the press-prize ofthe Association of EuropeanJournalists in 1989 in Athens andafter retirement working as re-sponsable editor of the “Eu-ropaeische Zeitung”, honoredAthanase Papandropoulos with ashort “laudatio”, pointing out, thathe - himself member of the “Hon-orable Senate” in Antwerpe sinceeleven years - made the proposalfor the prize in favour of hisGreek friend, because he wasclearly convinced, that AthanasePapandropoulos has done anoutstanding lot for Europe duringhis professional career, particu-larly as President of the Associa-tion of European Journalists,when he was very much engagedin founding and establishing newsections in the countries of theformer Sowjet-Union.

In his answering speechAthanase Papandropoulos paint-ed a historic, cultural und social

picture ranging from the very be-ginning of European democracyin Greece untill now, stressingthe importance of the work ofjournalists as “watch-dogs” ofany democratic developement.

The assembly welcomed thenew Greek Honorable Senator ofthe Flamish Movement by ap-plauding him.

✔ ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfis ¢È·ÁˆÓÈ-ÛÌfis,”SEE-EU in the future”2003

OE˘Úˆ·˚Îfis ‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfis“SEE-EU in the future”‰ÈÔÚÁ·ÓÒÓÂÙ·È ·fi ÙËÓ

∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË Ì ÙËÓ ˘-ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈÍË Ù˘ ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋s ∂È-ÙÚÔ‹s Î·È ÙËÓ °ÂÓÈ΋ °Ú·ÌÌ·-Ù›· ¡¤·s °ÂÓÈ¿s ÛÙËÓ ∂ÏÏ¿‰·Î·È ı· ‰ÈÂÍ·¯ı› Û ÙÚÂÈs ¯ÒÚÂs,∂ÏÏ¿‰·, °·ÏÏ›· Î·È °ÂÚÌ·Ó›·. √‰È·ÁˆÓÈÛÌfis ÚÔÔÚ›˙ÂÙ·È ÁÈ·ÌÂÙ·Ù˘¯È·ÎÔ‡s Î·È ‰È‰·ÎÙÔÚÈ-ÎÔ‡s ÊÔÈÙËÙ¤s ËÏÈΛ·s ¤ˆs 33 Â-ÙÒÓ, ÔÈ ÔÔ›ÔÈ ÛÔ˘‰¿˙Ô˘Ó ÌÈ··fi ÙÈÛ ·Ú·Î¿Ùˆ ÂÈÛً̘:ÙËÓ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌ›·, ÙȘ ÔÏÈÙÈΤs ÂÈ-ÛÙ‹ÌÂs Î·È ÙÈs Â˘Úˆ·˚ΤsÛÔ˘‰¤s, ηıÒs Î·È ÙËÓ ÓÔÌÈ΋,ÙËÓ ÛÙ·ÙÈÛÙÈ΋ Î·È Ù· ªª∂, ÔÈ Ô-Ô›ÔÈ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ÚÔÙ¿ÛÂÈs ÁÈ· ÙÔ̤ÏÏÔÓ ÙËs ∂˘ÚÒËs.

£· ‚Ú·‚¢ıÔ‡Ó ÔÈ 3 ηχÙÂ-ÚÂs ÂÚÁ·Û›Âs, ÌÈ· ·fi οı ¯Ò-Ú·. ∏ ÚÒÙË ¤Ú¢ӷ ·fi οı¯ÒÚ· ı· ÎÂÚ‰›ÛÂÈ ¯ÚËÌ·ÙÈÎfi ¤-·ıÏÔ ·Í›·s 500 ∂˘ÚÒ, ÂÓÒ ÔÈÂfiÌÂÓÂs ‰‡Ô ı· Ï¿‚Ô˘Ó ÂȉÈÎfi‚Ú·‚›Ô. ∂ÈϤÔÓ, ı· ·ÔÓÂÌË-ı› ∂˘Úˆ·˚Îfi ‚Ú·‚Â›Ô Î·ÈÓÔÙÔ-ÌÈ΋s ȉ¤·s ÌÂٷ͇ ÙˆÓ 9 ÂÈÏÂ-¯ı¤ÓÙˆÓ ÙˆÓ ÙÚÈÒÓ ¯ˆÚÒÓ, ·-Í›·s 700 ∂˘ÚÒ.

¶∂ƒπ™™√∆∂ƒ∂™¶§∏ƒ√º√ƒπ∂™

°π∞ ∆√¡ ¢π∞°ø¡π™ª√™∆π™ 3 Ãøƒ∂™ ™∆√ SITE:

www.ekfrasi.gr

¡ ∂ ∞ ∆ ∏ ™ ∂ ∫ º ƒ ∞ ™ ∏ ™ 47

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

Page 50: European Expression - Issue 48

48

EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H ñ Ù. 48 ñ 1O TPIMHNO 2003

48 ∂ À ƒ ø ¶ ∞ ´ ∫ ∏ ∂ ∫ º ƒ ∞ ™ ∏

¢HMO™IEY™EI™ ™THN EYPø¶A´KH EKºPA™H

™ÎÔfi˜ Ù˘ ¤Î‰ÔÛ˘ Â›Ó·È Ë ·ÚÔ˘Û›·ÛË ‰È·ÊÔ-ÚÂÙÈÎÒÓ ·fi„ÂˆÓ - ·ÚΛ Ó· ÌËÓ ÂÎʤÚÔÓÙ·È ·˘-ı·›ÚÂÙ· - Î·È Ë ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁ›· ηٿÏÏËÏÔ˘ Ï·ÈÛ›Ô˘‰È·ÏfiÁÔ˘ Î·È ·ÓÙ·ÏÏ·Á‹˜ ȉÂÒÓ Ì ›ÎÂÓÙÚÔ

ÙËÓ Â˘Úˆ·˚΋ ÔÏÔÎÏ‹ÚˆÛË Î·È ÙËÓ ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ Û˘Ì-ÌÂÙÔ¯‹ Û' ·˘Ù‹Ó. OÈ ·fi„ÂȘ Ô˘ ÂÎÊÚ¿˙ÔÓÙ·È ‰ÂÓ ‰ÂÛ̇ԢÓÙËÓ È‰ÈÔÎÙËÛ›·, ÙÔÓ ÂΉfiÙË ‹ ÙË Û‡ÓÙ·ÍË.

T· ¿ÚıÚ· Ù· ÔÔ›· ‰ËÌÔÛȇÔÓÙ·È ÛÙËÓ E˘Úˆ-·˚΋ 'EÎÊÚ·ÛË, ÂÈϤÁÔÓÙ·È ·fi ÙË Û‡ÓÙ·ÍË ÌÂÎÚÈÙ‹ÚÈ· ÙËÓ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈ΋ ÂÁ΢ÚfiÙËÙ·, ÙËÓ ÔÈ-fiÙËÙ·, ÙË ıÂÌ·ÙÈ΋ οı Ù‡¯Ô˘˜, ÙËÓ ÚˆÙÔÙ˘-

›· Î·È ÂÈηÈÚfiÙËÙ·. H ¤ÎÙ·ÛË ÙÔ˘ ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ ‰ÂÓÚ¤ÂÈ Ó· Â›Ó·È ÌÂÁ·Ï‡ÙÂÚË ·fi 900 ϤÍÂȘ.

ŸÛÔÓ ·ÊÔÚ¿ ÙȘ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈΤ˜ ‰ËÌÔÛȇÛÂȘ, ˘-Ô‚¿ÏÏÔÓÙ·È ÔÔÙ‰‹ÔÙÂ,Û ÙÚ›· ·ÓÙ›Ù˘·, ˘-·ÎÔ‡Ô˘Ó ÛÙȘ ‰ÈÂıÓ›˜ ÚԉȷÁڷʤ˜ ÂÈÛÙËÌÔ-ÓÈ΋˜ ÌÂıÔ‰ÔÏÔÁ›·˜, ‰ÂÓ ¤¯Ô˘Ó ‰ËÌÔÛÈ¢ı› Ô‡ÙÂ

Ì ·Ú·Ï‹ÛÈ· ÌÔÚÊ‹ ‹ ÂÚȯfiÌÂÓÔ Û ¿ÏÏ· ¤ÓÙ˘-·, ÎÚ›ÓÔÓÙ·È ·fi ̤ÏË Ù˘ EÈÛÙËÌÔÓÈ΋˜ EÈÙÚÔ‹˜ Ù˘E˘Úˆ·˚΋˜ 'EÎÊÚ·Û˘, Ì ϋÚË ‰È·ÛÊ¿ÏÈÛË Ù˘ ·ÓÙÈÎÂÈÌÂ-ÓÈ΋˜ ÎÚ›Û˘ (·ÓˆÓ˘Ì›· ÙÔ˘ ÎÚÈÓÔ̤ÓÔ˘ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÎÚÈÓfiÓÙˆÓ, ÔÎÚÈÓfiÌÂÓÔ˜ ÏËÚÔÊÔÚÂ›Ù·È ‚¤‚·È· ÔÏfiÎÏËÚË ÙËÓ ÎÚ›ÛË) Î·È Ë

¤ÎÙ·Û‹ ÙÔ˘˜ Î˘Ì·›ÓÂÙ·È ÌÂٷ͇ 2000 - 3000 Ϥ͈Ó. O ˘Ô„‹-ÊÈÔ˜ ·ÔÛÙ¤ÏÏÂÈ Û‡ÓÙÔÌÔ ‚ÈÔÁÚ·ÊÈÎfi ÛËÌ›ˆÌ·.

™Â fiϘ ÙȘ ÂÚÈÙÒÛÂȘ Ì·˙› Ì οı ˘Ô‚ÔÏ‹ÎÂÈ̤ÓÔ˘ Û˘ÌÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚¿ÓÂÙ·È Î·È ÂÚ›ÏË„Ë ÛÂÌÈ· ¿ÏÏË ÁÏÒÛÛ· (·ÓÙ›ÛÙÔȯ· ÛÙ· ·ÁÁÏÈο ‹ Ù·ÂÏÏËÓÈο) (100 - 200 ϤÍÂȘ). TÔ Î›ÌÂÓÔ ı· Ú¤-

ÂÈ Ó· ·ÔÛÙ¤ÏÏÂÙ·È Î·È Û ‰ÈÛΤٷ PC ÒÛÙ ӷ·ÔʇÁÔÓÙ·È ÔÈ ·‰˘Ó·Ì›Â˜ Ù˘ ‰·ÎÙ˘ÏÔÁÚ¿ÊËÛ˘ Î·È ÁÂÓÈοӷ ÂÈÙ·¯‡ÓÂÙ·ÈË ¤Î‰ÔÛË. K·Ïfi Â›Ó·È Â›Û˘ Ó· ·ÔÛÙ¤ÏÏÂ-Ù·È ÊˆÙÔÁÚ·Ê›· ÙÔ˘ Û˘ÁÁڷʤ·. XÂÈÚfiÁÚ·Ê·, ‰ÈÛΤÙ˜ ηȿÏÏ· ÚˆÙfiÙ˘· ‰ÂÓ ÂÈÛÙÚ¤ÊÔÓÙ·È.

A·ÁÔÚ‡ÂÙ·È ·˘ÛÙËÚ¿ Ë ÌÂÚÈ΋ ‹ ÔÏÈ΋ ·Ó·‰Ë-ÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ‹ ·Ó·‰È·ÓÔÌ‹ Ì ÔÔÈÔÓ‰‹ÔÙ ÙÚfiÔ,ÂÎÙfi˜ ·Ó ˘¿Ú¯ÂÈ ¤ÁÁÚ·ÊË ¿‰ÂÈ· ÙÔ˘ ÂΉfiÙË. OÈÛ˘ÁÁÚ·Ê›˜, ÌÂÙ¿ ÙËÓ ·Ó·ÎÔ›ÓˆÛË Û' ·˘ÙÔ‡˜ Ù˘ıÂÙÈ΋˜ ÎÚ›Û˘ ÁÈ· ÌÂÏÏÔÓÙÈ΋ ‰ËÌÔÛ›Â˘ÛË ÙÔ˘

¿ÚıÚÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ E˘Úˆ·˚΋ 'EÎÊÚ·ÛË, ‰ÂÛ̇ÔÓÙ·È ·˘Ùfi Ó· ÌËÓ‰ËÌÔÛÈ¢ı› ÔÔ˘‰‹ÔÙ ·ÏÏÔ‡. OÈ Û˘ÁÁÚ·Ê›˜ Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÔ˘Ó‰ˆÚÂ¿Ó ‰‡Ô ·ÓÙ›Ù˘· ÙÔ˘ ÔÈΛԢ Ù‡¯Ô˘˜. H ∂˘Úˆ·˚΋ŒÎÊÚ·ÛË ‰È·ÙËÚ› ÙÔ ·ÔÎÏÂÈÛÙÈÎfi ‰Èη›ˆÌ· Ó· ‰È·Ó¤ÌÂÈ ÌÂÔÔÈÔ˘Û‰‹ÔÙ fiÚÔ˘˜, ¿ÚıÚ·, ÂÚÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ‹ Î·È ÔÏfiÎÏËÚË ÙËÓE˘Úˆ·˚΋ 'EÎÊÚ·ÛË ‰È·Ì¤ÛÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ‰ÈÎÙ‡Ô˘ ÿÓÙÂÚÓÂÙ.

1

2

3

4

5

EÈı˘ÌÒ Ó· ÁÚ·ÊÙÒ Û˘Ó‰ÚÔÌËÙ‹˜ ÛÙÔ Â-ÚÈÔ‰ÈÎfi «E˘Úˆ·˚΋ 'EÎÊÚ·ÛË» ˆ˜: ............ETH™IA ¢YO ETøN

ú T·ÎÙÈÎfi˜ Û˘Ó‰ÚÔÌËÙ‹˜................................................15 ¢ÚÒ 28 ¢ÚÒ

ú ¢ËÌfiÛÈÔ, OÚÁ·ÓÈÛÌÔ›, TÚ¿Â˙˜,N¶¢¢, N¶I¢, EÙ·ÈÚ›˜, ™‡ÏÏÔÁÔÈ................................21 ¢ÚÒ 42 ¢ÚÒ

ú E˘ÚÒË ......................................................................21 ¢ÚÒ 38 ¢ÚÒ

ú 'AÏϘ 'HÂÈÚÔÈ...........................................................24 ¢ÚÒ 48 ¢ÚÒ

ú ºÔÈÙËÙÈ΋, ÛÔ˘‰·ÛÙÈ΋, ÛÙÚ·ÙȈÙÈ΋ .........................12 ¢ÚÒ 21 ¢ÚÒ

ú ™˘Ó‰ÚÔÌ‹ ÂÓ›Û¯˘Û˘ - ˘ÔÛÙ‹ÚÈ͢............................40 ¢ÚÒ 80 ¢ÚÒ

¢E§TIO™YN¢POMHTOY

E¶øNYMO ......................................................................

ONOMA ............................................................................

¢IEY£YN™H ...................................................................

............................................................................................

TK............¶O§H............................TH§.:.......................

E-mail:................................................................................

π¢π√∆∏∆∞: .......................................................................

HMEPOMHNIA Y¶O°PAºH

................................................. ...............................................

ŒÙÔ˜ ›‰Ú˘Û˘: 1989

OÌ‹ÚÔ˘ 54, 106 72, Aı‹Ó·, ÙËÏ.: 3643223-4, fax: 36.46.953,e-mail: [email protected].

H Û˘Ó‰ÚÔÌ‹ ÌÔÚ› Ó· ηٷ‚ÏËı› ÛÙ· ÁÚ·Ê›· (ηıËÌÂÚÈÓ¿ 09.30 - 17.00, OÌ‹ÚÔ˘ 54), Ì ٷ¯˘‰ÚÔÌÈ΋ ÂÈÙ·Á‹·fi ÔÔÈÔ‰‹ÔÙ ٷ¯˘‰ÚÔÌÈÎfi ηٿÛÙËÌ·, ‹ Ó· ηٷÙÂı› ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÏÔÁ·ÚÈ·ÛÌÔ‡˜ 701/296002-87 Ù˘ EıÓÈ΋˜ TÚ·¤˙˘,

‹ 176-002101 - 023369 Ù˘ Alpha Bank Î·È Ó· Ì·˜ ÂȉÔÔÈ‹ÛÂÙ ۯÂÙÈο Ì ÙËÓ Î·Ù¿ıÂÛË.

EYPø¶A´KHEKºPA™H

Page 51: European Expression - Issue 48
Page 52: European Expression - Issue 48