Filenews 15 August 2021 - by Frixos Dalitis
He talks about the weapon of vaccination against the pandemic and the debate around mandatory or not, making it clear that for the EU it is a matter for states alone. The Head of the EU Office in Cyprus, Ierotheos Papadopoulos, is packing his suitcases for his new diplomatic destination as he has completed his cycle in our country. He refers to the EU's efforts to tackle the health crisis and the actions taken on the basis of the principle of state solidarity. He comments on the EU's decisions and its stance against Turkey for its illegal actions in Famagusta. At the same time, he analyses the EU's objectives and policies to tackle climate change. An issue that comes first.
He also refers to his personal experience of his presence in Cyprus and his feelings now that he is leaving. He declares himself a man who is naturally positive. He tries, as he says, every situation to experience it through this prism. "It was a great experience. I learned new things and I corrected and completed the knowledge that I had acquired about Cyprus as a Greek, but who lived far from it. I made some wonderful friendships, fraternal friendships in terms I would say Filiki Eteria. These will endure for the duration of my biological life", he states, concluding how all beautiful things, however, reach an end at some point. "This moment has arrived for me. I am leaving, with one thank you from the bottom of my heart, to my colleagues, to Cyprus that loved me, to Cyprus that I loved", he says.
- The war of the pandemic continues at a Pan-European level. There is generally a dissatisfaction among citizens of all states about the handling, the lack of consultation in decisions and a suspicion about the handling of the pandemic. What do you answer?
- Of course there has been intensive consultation with scientists and state health structures. The health care framework was discussed with the experts, not with interest groups. The Member States have decided for their citizens and especially for vulnerable citizens. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, as the experts told us, were absolutely necessary.
From the piecemeal measures of the first few weeks, for which the Member States were responsible, we have gone in record time to a common approach both to non-pharmaceutical interventions and to the joint procurement of vaccines. Without EU funding, we would certainly have a significant delay in the development of vaccines. When everyone was looking for what to do, the EU, that is, the European institutions and the 27, with consultation and co-decision in which it participated equally and the Republic of Cyprus proceeded to a joint investment in the widest possible portfolio of potential vaccines at the time. We neither put all the eggs in the same basket, nor did we bet only on one horse. We must understand that the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, many small and medium-sized countries, it is not certain whether and when they would have seen a vaccine if we had not agreed to the joint procurement. Today we have surpassed the U.S. in vaccination rates, we have surpassed 62% of full adult vaccination and over 70% in the first dose, having supplied the entire planet with about as many vaccines as we have kept for ourselves. Who else did that? Who else is making such massive exports of hundreds of millions of vaccines? No one is safe unless we all become safe. This is the EU's assessment and it has proved to be correct with the course of mutations.
- There is a strong perception of a reduction in individual freedoms, on the pretext of measures against the pandemic. I imagine you are also receiving this impression from a lot of people. What do you answer?
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions are the recommendation of science to limit transmission. It is not a choice but a necessity. My grandparents went through the Asia Minor disaster, emigration, wars. My parents experienced hunger, occupation, dictatorships. In other words, do we resent the fact that we have to be careful of our respiratory behaviour in order not to endanger our vulnerable fellow citizens? It is good to have the analogy of things in our minds. Just as there are those who resent non-pharmaceutical interventions, know that there are also those who resent those who do not observe the measures of individual and collective protection. The sooner we assume our collective and individual responsibility, the sooner we will end the pandemic. And of course it is not enough that we have secured sufficient quantities of vaccines for everyone, contrary to what was prophesied by some who for a year said that we will not succeed. It is not enough, because now everyone has to go and get vaccinated again, following the advice of science, their doctors. We listen to the recommendations of the World Health Organization and science. Not the 'experts' of Facebook or Twitter, who often reproduce 'news' that has no scientific basis. Immunology is a special branch of medicine. It is impossible for anyone to claim that they can even perceive, let alone interpret, medical publications without having the necessary background and today lure a section of the population. As we said above, we need rationality, transparency and accountability to move forward socially. Conspiracy theory and victimization have never helped any society. On the contrary, we have seen where any societies that followed them ended up.
- There is a great debate on the issue of vaccination, on its mandatoriness, but also on measures to coerce citizens through the use of SafePass. What do you answer? What is the EU's position on this? Is there a single policy or is it a matter for each state?
- Vaccination campaigns are a purely national competence. The Member States have exclusive competence for them. It is clear from the EU Treaties which competences are of the Member States and which ones fall at the collegiate level. Therefore, the European Commission has no 'position' on the issue of whether or not member states could impose on groups of the population. At the same time, however, non-pharmaceutical interventions and measures to protect public health are the human expression of solidarity between European citizens. We protect our fellow citizens and ourselves. We follow science, not charlatans, propagandists, or those who have personal agendas of exploiting the crisis for their own benefit. How were a number of dangerous childhood diseases eliminated? By vaccination. How has life expectancy increased and infant mortality decreased? I think we forget all too easily what previous generations went through.
But the other thing we have to ask ourselves is what the refusal to vaccinate says about the scientific training of certain disciplines. For example, a nurse who, while being all day in danger of being exposed to large Covid loads, refuses to protect himself and protect his family, does not seem to have fully understood the background of this function.
With regard to the regulation on the European digital covid certificate, which I would remind you includes all three situations, negative testing, recovery or vaccination, this is a right - to facilitate movement between Member States - and not an obligation or condition for movement. Now, if the Member States wish to use it, like any of their own systems, it is their decision to do so, after having received an opinion from the national data protection authorities. That is how the European Commission took a position on the matter, very early on, and this position is well known to the Member States.
- The next day of the pandemic in terms of the Economy, what is it? Can states win the bet of recovery? Climate change is now high on the EU's agenda. What do you think will be the impact of the Commission's recent proposals at global level?
- In record time for European or even national standards, last summer, the 27 decided that the blow to the economy goes beyond national dividing lines and the answer must be common. The EU has gone beyond decades of discussions and has taken on joint borrowing; most Member States have already submitted national recovery and resilience plans and already the first states have started receiving advances. The time of the advance for Cyprus, given the approval given on 26/07 by Ecofin, is very close.
Cyprus will receive a total of €1.2 billion; €157 million of which in the coming weeks as 13% pre-financing. The real bet is that the next day is not the same as the previous one. The consensus and consensus of the 27, to commit the resources of European taxpayers to joint borrowing, is that the next day should not resemble the previous one. We will not spend together to get back to business as usual.
Contrary. Fossil fuels have reached their limits. Climate change, warming is not just knocking on our door, it is here. We are already experiencing the dramatic results. Just a few days ago, on 9 August, the United Nations Scientific Committee on Climate clearly presented the enormous change taking place in the climate, which is of anthropogenic origin. If we do not radically change the way we live, what we produce, what we consume, the way our economy works, the future will be much uglier. Heatwaves and desertification will be everyday life, and the time we have left is minimal. The planet has reached its limits and immediate action cannot be postponed.
41% of the Cypriot package is climate-targeted. That is a good thing. The challenge of the next day is to implement, or implement and control.
It is Turkey that needs to change, not the EU
- Strict and demonstrative EU in Turkey on the issue of Famagusta. There is a disappointment at Brussels' attitude to the Famagusta issue. How do you comment on it?
- I do not know who expressed disappointment about "the attitude of Brussels", because both the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the Prime Minister of Greece expressed "on camera" satisfaction with the decisions, the conclusions and the framework of the European Council Summits, as well as the statement of the High Representative/Vice-President that followed.
The Borrell Declaration was a statement on behalf of all the Member States. And in the end what needed to be done was done. The Tatar announcement did not go unanswered and the other side was held accountable. It is quite clear that with its conclusions the European Council has also linked the issue of Famagusta to any positive agenda that will be offered to Turkey. The European Union is a peace project. Its weapons are the Treaties on which it is founded, international law and diplomacy. Those who have magical solutions with which to solve problems, it would be good to report them to us. Those who believe or know that there is somewhere, a button that is enough to be pressed by someone to bring the desired results, it is also advisable to share this knowledge with us in order to save time and resources.
With regard to the management of expectations, allow me to make a more general observation: the absolutely essential elements for the progress of societies and peoples are rational thinking, open dialogue, self-awareness, self-criticism, transparency and accountability. We need to sit down and reflect on what, how and how much we use these elements as a society in the public discourse. It is easy for others to always blame us and for us to never be to blame.
- How do you assess the relationship between Turkey and the EU and the attitude of Germany, which does not want conflict with Ankara?
- Reversing the question, do you think that the Republic of Cyprus wants what you call the "conflict with Ankara", or does Greece want "conflict with Ankara"? Of course not. 'Conflict with Ankara' does not want, does not plan and does not seek any EU Member State whatsoever, neither the Republic of Cyprus, nor Greece, nor Germany.
I would like to remind you about the "conflict" that the Republic of Cyprus itself, together with its partners, has decided on Turkey's candidacy for EU membership. This is a strategic choice for a number of reasons. What is also clear is that, if Turkey is ever ready for accession, then it will be a European Turkey. The EU will not change to integrate it. Turkey will have to change and the 'ball' is now on its side of the pitch, if I may say so.
Moreover, to dispel this myth, the EU has repeatedly taken a stand, at the highest possible level (European Council), it has both a framework and a long list of sanctions relating to Turkey's stance. It has been applied since 2006 by the Ankara Protocol, until the freezing of assets in persons and entities in connection with the attempted drillings. But these are the means, but not the end in themselves. Our aim is not to punish; the EU does not 'take revenge'. Our goal is to change Ankara's behaviour and you will surely see that in the big picture, the situation has nothing to do with 2020, where we avoided a really serious threat of conflict between Greece and Turkey.
Let me also remind you that Germany's mediation last year did not fall from the sky, but was requested by a Member State which felt threatened with its security by the looming situation.
In the end, those who say that Germany, one Member State or another has stopped some 'stronger move', let us explain how we arrived at the decisions, the clear statements, the conclusions with the nominal references to the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, and the framework of the decisions that have brought the results so far with the de-escalation in the Mediterranean sea. How many months have passed since we were extremely close to a hot episode?
Diplomacy has the aims and purpose of maintaining peace, not the delight of the anger of the citizens. Those who are waiting for decisions that will temporarily satisfy, then perhaps they are disappointed. But do not forget that decisions on foreign policy are taken by the 27 and only by unanimity. Neither Borrell alone, nor the Commission, nor anyone else. Obviously the Member States also have their individual positions. This is legitimate in a Union of 27 states. This is the essence of the EU, the composition and the consensus.
Climate neutral in 2050
- Can the EU tackle the consequences of climate change at global level with policies? Can the green deal help economic growth after the problems caused by the pandemic?
- On this planet we are all in the same boat. The hole is not just "on the other's side." The EU has set an example with the European Green Deal for others to follow. And the moves of the new US administration are similarly in the right direction. The EU has decided to radically change the way we deal with the environment and greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years. It is perhaps our last chance, as the United Nations says, to reverse the rise in global temperatures and avoid the desertification of large areas which, as you say, could in turn lead to uncontrollable migratory pressures. Last summer the 27 decided a very clever way to use the necessary funds for recovery - the green deal provides the funds and solves three problems at once: the issue of financing the recovery and financing for the green and digital transitions. And that was done by seeing the big picture of the issues we decided to address. We make the crisis an opportunity. The same applies to the digital transition, which will make life easier for citizens, cut red tape and create new, better-quality and better-paid jobs, again with next-generation EU funds.
- How do you imagine the future of the EU? Should the pandemic become the starting point for a new political direction, more humane, with emphasis on social policy, health and education?
- There is currently no other region on the planet with democratic institutions, urban organisation and an open economy that places more emphasis on the social dimension and people. The great convergences in the EU have always come about through the synthesis of different political tendencies, with an emphasis on social transfers, on redistribution - this is the nature of the Community budget. Of course, the construction of Europe continues and is being built. The Union for Health, learned among other things from the lessons of the pandemic, is the next bet and so far we see that it is the Member States themselves that are now asking for it. Hence the sustainable development goals. The aim of sustainable development is to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development is an integrated approach that includes mutually reinforcing economic, social and environmental aspects. Sustainable development will enable the Union to achieve its great objective of becoming climate neutral in 2050.
