By Con George-Kotzabasis
Professor Vrasidas Karalis of Sydney University, the translator of some of the books of Patrick White, has come to bury the condottieri of multiculturalism—I won’t call them warriors as that would give a worthy name to an unworthy cause—that are still fighting ingloriously and in an enfeebled state to resuscitate a concept that has been in a comatose state since the late eighties, when Slav Macedonians were burning Greek churches and when more recently, fanatic jihadists in pursuit of the seventy-two virgins, I must say, a chimerical, an eluding chase, they will never find them, were planning to kill thousands of Australians in football grounds and in public malls. It is in such a deadly milieu that the multiculturalists are attempting, in a futile and full of zealotry effort, to breathe life into a ghost. And in spite of the fact that the founding father of multiculturalism, professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, expressed explicitly his doubts about the viability of multiculturalism in the face of this tidal wave of atavism. Also, Gareth Evans, serving at the time as minister of communications, said to me in a phone conversation, that these conflicts between Slavs and Greeks, Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians spelled out the burial of multiculturalism.
It is a great fallacy to postulate that cultures have an amicable disposition and can live in a peaceful state of coexistence with each other without conflict. History has shown pellucidly that cultures, on fundamental issues are irreconcilable, and are in a permanent state of antagonistic competition and the stronger and more successful always subdue and supplant the weaker and less thriving. The Romans appropriated the higher culture of the Greeks and the German tribes, who were fighting the Romans were, in turn, absorbed by the higher culture of the latter.
No less a figure than Karl Marx, many of whose supporters today are puzzlingly upholders of multiculturalism, expressed, with characteristic force and eloquence, the inequality of cultures and the irreversible proclivity of the more powerful, in terms of intellectual, scientific, economic, and political success, to overwhelm and vanquish the weaker and less successful in the realm of human development and freedom. Without for a moment supporting or pleading his ideology, I would like, if you allow me, to paraphrase the great man: The elemental force of capitalism and its great culture would sweep away, on a vast scale, the dead weight of traditions and cultures that riveted their peoples to the obfuscation, ignorance, and bigotry of a hoary past.
After this long, but I believe relevant diversion, let us return back to the thesis of Professor Karalis. In a well structured argument delivered with panache, vivacity and wit, Karalis cogently argued, that with the ascendance of the Liberal-National Party to power in 1997, and the immediate dismantling of multiculturalism by the Howard government and the weak reaction of the ethnic communities to this dismantling, especially the Greek that was the avant-garde of multiculturalism, demonstrated clearly that the major part of these communities in a short duration were absorbed by a process of osmosis to the values and mores of a global, cosmopolitan Australian society. In his own words, the ethnic communities were incorporated within the political, economic, and cultural institutional framework of the Australian society. And he asks the question, is there still any reason to advocate multiculturalism as a nation-building policy or as a political project for the future? His answer is decisively negative.
Professor Karalis not only buried multiculturalism, but also inadvertently, fully justified the position and prognostications of the historian Geoffrey Blainey and that great Australian John Stone who both of them expressed, almost fifteen years ago, for which they were pilloried and maligned by the leftist intelligentsia, that multiculturalism was the design of historically ignorant politicians who could not perceive that at a critical moment would collide with Australian culture and would never recover from this crash. And the death knell for multiculturalism sounds presently in all European countries–especially in the context of Islamist terror–which had also so naively and un-historically adapted it as the elixir that would induce different cultures and peoples to love each other. They had forgotten that amity and congeniality could only issue from the sharing of common fundamental values that give the opportunity to all to succeed in the endeavours of daily life and to fulfil their ambitions according to their individualistic proclivities. It is the great culture of capitalism and its free enterprise system that provides these invaluable principles that lead to the comity of nations and peoples and eradicate, to a high degree, deadly conflict.
I rest on my oars:your turn nowNo comments
By Con George-Kotzabasis
It will have even bigger consequences if it succeeds by wishful thinking. Rapprochement in itself is meaningless unless there is clear and unambiguous understanding and agreement between the parties about the conditions of such rapprochement. It would be a mistake to deduce from the rhetorically conciliatory statements of President Rouhani that Iran has abandoned its desire to acquire nuclear weapons. And to differentiate himself from the holocaustian statements of his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, is hardly an indication that the new regime is repudiating its clandestine goal to develop a nuclear weapon. Only if Rouhani allows open and rigorous inspections in all areas of Iran where Western intelligence cogently suspects the secret development of a nuclear weapon will the experts be convinced that Iran has changed tack in regard to its nuclear arsenal.
It is more probable, because Rouhani perceives a weak president in the United States, he will be exploiting that weakness to achieve Iran’s historic and Islamic aim to enter the nuclear club by persuading Obama about the peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear build-up. Rouhani is aware that Obama needs and desires a suspension of tensions so he will have the excuse to take all options off the table and thus as an incompetent and effete president tranquilize himself by false hopes. And Rouhani and his advisors know, that this détente can be achieved on promissory notes that will never be cashed. Thus by providing Obama the confidence that he can come to a reasonable agreement with Iran, Rouhani achieves two diplomatic goals. (1) He defers USA action from resolving speedily and decisively the issue of nuclear weapons by creating the euphoria that this matter can be resolved by prolonged negotiations, a dilatoriness that Obama is most happy to accept as he desires to push the hard options, if they are needed, in the future ahead with the hope that they will never be used, and which also suits Rouhani perfectly as it will give Iran more time to achieve its strategic goal to build the bomb. And (2) weakening Israel’s resolve to unilaterally attack Iran’s nuclear installations, if other Western states are found to be wanting in stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear armaments, by isolating Israel from its major ally, the USA, and from other Western nations, and thus making it more difficult for Israel to strike.
It is for this reason that Clemons should be more restrained in his optimism of the opportunity of reaching a rapprochement with Iran when a more sinister and malign opportunity could be hidden behind the apparently benign talk of Rouhani.No comments
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The globe-trotting Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis who flies around the world on other peoples money to spread his Cassandra doomsday scenarios about the European Union and especially of Greece, in his latest preoccupation, deviously and exuberantly praises the leader of the opposition Alexis Tsipras for his speech before an assembly of Austrian Social Democrats in Vienna. Well that he is doing so, since the speech is a copycat of his own ideas as encapsulated in his Modest Proposal as well as in other of his writings, and therefore his praise of Tsipras, in the event, is an ungracious self-praise of himself. He has kept silent as to the authorship of the speech and to the questions of some of the commentators on his blog whether he wrote it, he doesn’t answer yes or no. He answers his questioners with an obfuscating one word that the speech is “verbatim,” but he doesn’t explain of what and of whose text it is verbatim of, hence his deviousness. But even if it is true, which is highly unlikely, that our professor is not the writer of the speech, then the latter cannot be anything else but a complete plagiarism committed by Tsipras of Varoufakis’s ideas and thoughts.
The following is a brief reply to Professor Varoufakis, which was sent to his blog for publication, but he refused to publish it.
Professor Varoufakis, you are displaying your intellectual bankruptcy by becoming the ventriloquist to Tsipras’s speech. To allow a mediocrity such as Tsipras to be the propagator and presenter of the ideas of your Modest Proposal and other of your own writings, not only shows the self-demotion you inflict upon yourself unconsciously, but also, your narcissistic temperament urging you to exhibit your intellectual wares to wider audiences by any means, even by vendors of disreputable standing.
P.S. I know you don’t have the guts to publish my comment, but at least I’ll get the pleasure that YOU read it.No comments
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Barack Obama was, is, and will remain an appeaser of radical Islam, as it is a constituent part of his weak character and more dangerously of his effete leadership. Like a fearful child he avoids his fears by hiding his face under the bed-sheets. This is clearly illustrated by his fudging of the word “jihadist” with its inherent fanatical murderous action –which he fears to admit– by changing it to the less fearsome one of “workplace violence,” his description of the Fort Hood massacre, whose jihadist perpetrator Dr Nidal Hasan was sentenced to death today. It is by such changes and meaningless laughable words within the scenario of terrorism that the commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation purports to fight the existential threat that radical Islam poses to Western civilization. A black comedy ham is the occupier of the White House.No comments
By Con George-Kotzabasis—June 24, 2013
At last, Kevin Rudd, after swallowing a double dose of Viagra he is entering the ‘seraglio of reality’ that you can only stop the boats carrying asylum seekers not by a policy of immaculate conception, as he has done in the past when he repudiated and displaced Howard’s Pacific Solution, but only by forcefully violating the ‘hymen’ of this intricately difficult problem and giving birth to a hard line policy that will decisively stop illegal migrants from entering Australia. His deal with Papua New Guinea (PNG) to resettle refugees in the latter is a masterstroke that will achieve this up till now elusive goal.
This is a craftily made disincentive that will comprehensibly deter asylum seekers from reaching the shores of Australia by boat, since they will know beforehand that they will be send to New Guinea for perpetual settlement. And with the barrage of advertisements that the Rudd government is preparing that will make explicit the new government policy to would-be refugees and by implicitly conveying to them the inimical environment in which they will be residing, this will erase any incentive attempting to enter Australia by paying people smugglers when their dangerous and expensive passage over the sea will take them not to the social and economic paradise of Australia but to the hellish socio-economic conditions of the dangerous land of PNG. And the veracity of the appalling and dangerous environment in which refugees will be placed is being ironically corroborated, willy-nilly, by all their ‘humanitarian’ supporters, like David Marr, and defence lawyers, who have already in their shrill shouts denounced Rudd’s announcement as “a day of shame” for Australia depicting in dramatic terms the great dangers that refugees will be facing in this hellishly bad setting once they are settled in PNG. After refugees becoming cognisant of the infernal conditions in which they will be living in, by these statements of their own supporters too (thus all the fans and backers of asylum seekers will find themselves being redundant and deprived of their libidinal pleasure by showing their heart on their sleeves, by their own ironic contribution to the stopping of the boats), who of the illegal migrants would be willing to pay a smuggler to be transported by Charon to the Hades of PNG and not to the paradisiac land of Australia?
Beyond any doubt, if the Rudd government will retain to the end the strength and acquire the determination to implement this hard line policy and there are no insurmountable legal challenges to it will exultantly succeed in this endeavour to protect the borders of Australia. And Kevin Rudd from a weak politician will be metastasized into the Roman god Terminus who guarded the boundaries of the republic by the force of arms. But if he is going to avoid from embarrassing the Roman god, he must tear the veil of pretence that covers the ugly features of this new policy and hails it as being humanitarian by arguing fatuously and emotionally that it will save lives by preventing boat people from drowning. Indeed, he will save them from drowning at sea but only by drowning them on dry land, in the socially cesspool of Papua New Guinea. Thus, his ‘humanitarianism’ will be swallowed in the whirlpool of his own hard line policy. Mockingly, he himself has already admitted that his new policy on illegal migrants has all the hard features of a porcupine—to use a metaphor. And the reason he has adopted this porcupine is, other than winning votes, to prevent boat people coming to Australia.
In his by now double replication of “me-tooism”of John Howard—the first time he professed to be willing to imitate Howard, as dyed in the wool conservative, in economic policy, this time he is doing it on border protection—he is out-distancing the latter in his hard line, like a galloping horse running next to a mule. And if he doesn’t lose his balance riding this winning stallion over the rough ground of politics, which so many times before enfeebled his policies by making them captive to populism, he will triumphantly pass the winning post and stop the boats.
I rest on my oars: your turn nowNo comments
If the Prime Minister Of Greece is a madman wanting elections will his two partners in Government Venizelos and Kouvelis also voluntarily wear the straitjacket and join him in madness instead as sane men preventing the election by a reasonable compromise on their part and thus save Greece from catastrophe?
By Con George-Kotzabasis—June 19, 2013
The leaders of Pasok and the Democratic Left (Demar) Venizelos and Kouvelis will go down in Modern Greek history as the comedians Laurel and Hardy (in Greek o hondros kee o lignos) who in their stolid persistence and politically wrong and unimaginative stand to save the wasteful and non-transparent public broadcaster ERT, were willing and determined to accomplish this great feat by destroying Greece. Never in the annals of Greek history will one find politicians who were prepared to sacrifice, to use a metaphor, Acropolis on the altar of a hovel. This would have been exactly the result of the doltish populist stunt of Venizelos and Kouvelis to save ERT if Andonis Samaras with the extraordinary resiliency characteristic of a statesman had not provided speedily a compromise that prevented the fall of his government and the transportation of Greece by the Charon Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, into hades, since the likely outcome of a new election would bring Tsipras into power whose untenable, puerile, and wild policies would ruin the country for at least a generation. The major points of the compromise are: (a) the immediate formation of a governing committee that would preside over the prompt re-opening of a temporary ERT until a new TV-Radio public broadcaster is set up operating with fewer numbers of employees. (b) The appointment of a special minister chosen either by Pasok or Demar, or by both, for the setting up of the new public broadcaster. (c) The adoption of processes that would ameliorate the coordination of the three parties regarding political agreements and their implementation. (d) The reshuffling of his Ministry in the beginning of July and the appointment of new people into ministerial positions coming from the three parties. These points of compromise fall into the order-baskets of Pasok and Demar and presumably will defuse the detonating atmosphere that has been created by their demands that could blow up the Coalition Government.
In one year, the Samaras government in a bout of sagacious and bold policies, that were regrettably and inevitably painful to the Greek people, was able to put Greece on the trajectory of economic development as all top European politicians and technocrats, serious economic commentators acknowledged and rating agencies such as Standard Poor’s and Finch favourably appraised, that Greece by the end of 2014 would have a positive growth in GDP. Interestingly, this assessment was also acknowledged by the two partners in the coalition government, Pasok and Demar, which clearly indicated that the policies of the Samaras government were on the right track and pulling Greece slowly but surely out of the crisis and therefore were supported by the two parties up to the hilt. Thus their prudent and brave decision on June 2012 to support and be part of a government of the centre right, with the aim to save Greece from a dire and horrendous bankruptcy that would have plunged the people into an abject and perishing poverty for decades, was paying off, as the saving of Greece would lead its people to applaud and glorify Pasok and Demar for their political nous to participate in this historical task, with the corollary that this great achievement would shoot the electoral prospects of the parties to the sky.
But tragically, or rather farcically, Venizelos and Kouvelis in their politically infantile support of the administratively corrupt and opaque ERT and in their prevention and vetoing of Samaras, in his attempt to cleanse the Aegean Stables of the public broadcaster, in the name of inveterate democratic institutions– as if the closure of ERT was unconstitutional and an act of authoritarianism by the Samaras government—are threatening the cohesion of the fragile tripartite coalition and thus by leading to its fracture will be sweeping away, by an action of unprecedented stupidity, all the achievements that have the great potential of pulling the country out of the crisis. And as I said in a previous article few days ago, the fall of the Samaras government instigated by this foolish stand of Venizelos and Kouvelis would not only lead to the electoral destruction of their parties, but also, to the destruction of Greece. As new elections would elevate the extreme left Opposition Party Syriza into power whose antediluvian votaries of Marxism under the leadership of Tsipras will be configuring the historically discredited policies of socialism that in their final knock will be opening the doors to totalitarianism. This will be the ignominious political legacy of Pasok and Demar if their leaders continue to persist in their fatuous demand about ERT that could bring the fall of the Samaras government and its catastrophic consequences.
Venizelos and Kouvelis with a remarkable twist in logic are blaming Samaras for creating the crisis in the tripartite government and claim that the incandescent speech of the latter at Nauplio—which obviously burned to ashes the arguments of the protagonists of ERT—that exposed the administrative rottenness of ERT and criticized severely its two intransigent supporters without naming them, also propagated sotto voce and implied the possibility of new elections that nobody wants other than Syriza and accuse him that he would be solely responsible for placing the country to this extreme danger. This accusation is however ludicrous, because, if Samaras led the country to the polls, first, he would fulfil the wishes of Syriza, and second, he would commit himself political harakiri. Moreover, if this accusation was true, as a result of Samaras’ lapse into uncharacteristic stupidity, then the responsibility would fall on Venizelos and Kouvelis to exercise their statesmanship and make the necessary compromises toward the Samaras government and avoid a poll that would be so dangerous to the country. Such is the stuff and tasks of statesmanship; but it is beyond the vision and competence of Laurel and Hardy leadership.1 comment
In view of his gaffe on Indonesia that Australia’s policies on illegal migrants under Tony Abbot could spark a war between them, I’m republishing this short piece that was written in 2008.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
In our times when rogue states bristling in their apocalyptic beards, like Iran, could produce stealthily nuclear weapons, to set up an International Commission for nuclear disarmament, as Prime Minister Rudd proposes to do, is the ultimate stupidity that any one could suggest. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the magnitude of such stupidity takes astronomical dimensions. Just imagine that countries such as America, Britain, France, and especially, Israel, which could be the targets of a nuclear attack by an Islamist state or by proxies of the latter, would even consider their nuclear disarmament.
Rudd’s proposal limpidly illustrates that Australia does not have a statesman at the helm but a political dilettante and a populist to boot who is more concerned to ingratiate himself with the celestial wishes of its liberal minded constituency than to deal with geopolitical realities.
Moreover, what is rather surprising and amusing is to see that Gareth Evans is willing to underwrite such political buffoonery by accepting the chair of the International Commission for nuclear disarmament. It seems that his Tasmanian “Biggles” days are not over.
Your opinion…2 comments
In a world of belligerent deadly religious fanaticism only the morally strong and those endowed with reason and the use of the arsenal of reason can indulge in hope.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
A reply to: Drones: the killing is cheap but the price is high by Waleed Aly
The Age May 31, 2013
The crypto radical Islamist Waleed Aly, wrapped up in the prestigious garb of Academe, is once again showing his true colours as an apologist and ‘secret agent’ of Islamist terror in his article in The Age, this time under the ‘clever’ cover of the flying “armed drones” which so cheaply and so immorally, according to him, are killing not only terrorists but also in higher numbers, civilians. He also claims, that to Americans, and by implication to Western countries involved in the war against terror, the price of the war is cheap as their Islamist opponents cannot kill drones nor those who man them thus making war “a kind of no-risk, low-cost warfare” for those who use them. He further argues, that “war is a kind of contract. Each side confronts the other, with the risk of death and defeat…that contract is shredded when you are attacked by something that cannot itself be killed. It’s not remotely a fair (M.E.) fight.” But he does not comprehend that war is always an unequal contract between combatants, and there are not mutual benefits and costs to be shared between them as in a normal business contract; nor ever is war a “fair fight,” as there is always an asymmetry of military power, technological and scientific prowess and strategic ruse and moral endurance among fighting opponents that ultimate decides who are the winners and losers.
Further he compounds the superficiality of his position in matters of war by his inability to perceive that the use of drones is not only for the purpose of killing not easily accessible terrorists of high rank, who, moreover, deliberately hide among civilians and are therefore morally responsible for the collateral killing of the latter, but also as a complementary effective instrument in the global war against Islamist terror and of its great potential in bringing its end sooner and before the terrorists acquire more devastating weapons that would kill civilians in America and the West in hundreds of thousands.
Moreover, war being the ultimate sacrifice, one does not go into it because of “low costs” or “on a whim,” as Aly argues, but only as an absolute necessity, when a nation and its civilians are threatened, in the near future, with total obliteration by an indefatigable and irreconcilable religious fanatic enemy, who is being in the process of implementing Allah’s Agenda with its strategic goal of destroying or enslaving the lands of the infidels and establishing the Caliphate of God. In such ominous circumstances it would be laughable to say that one would wage war “on a whim.”
Lastly, Aly lacks the imagination to consider that suicide bombers are the ‘poor science’s drones and like the latter they are invulnerable to killing by their enemy. Who can kill the suicide bomber other than himself? Who can identify in time someone who is prepared to commit religious harakiri and prevent it unless one can monitor one’s intentions and actions in a split second? And indubitably the suicide bomber can kill a much greater number of civilians than a drone, not only because it is easier to kill civilians than military personnel, but also because on philosophical ideological and strategic reasons he/she mainly targets civilians (Is this a “remotely fair fight”) in contrast to military strategists who target high echelon terrorists and kill civilians only accidentally and mainly as a result that terrorists are hiding among them. Thus in real numbers it is for the terrorist that the “killing is high but the price is cheap” as a hugely disproportionate number of civilians are killed in comparison to suicide bombers. But as in the past, Walled Aly as a camouflaged radical Islamist, dissimulates and refuses to reveal this reality that is against his creed.1 comment
By Con George-Kotzabasis-May 22, 2013
The Marxistoid professor of economics Yannis Varoufakis (In his keynote speech in the Subversive Festival of Zagreb, Croatia, on 14th May, 2013, he confessed himself to be an “Erratic Marxist”), whom Marx himself would have placed under the category “vulgar” for following the footsteps of the great man erratically and loosely, in a choleric and ideologically tendentious article on his website, argues, that the “The Greek Success Story” is “The latest Orwellian Turn of the Greek Crisis.” All the favorable indices by which the “international press and the money markets seem to concur,” to quote him, that the country is on the road to recovery, are to the professor a contrived fiction and “vile propaganda” by the Samaras government to deceive and fool investors and to inveigle them to make “cheap investments” in the country with the prospect of high profits.
According to Varoufakis’ argument, among the deceived and the fools are not only investors but also renowned credit rating agencies, such as Standard and Poors, and Finch, which have upgraded the Greek state’s credit worthiness and four Greek banks, a number of serious economic commentators who foresee the reigniting of the Greek economy the following year and a growth of 0,6% in 2014 –some indeed write about a “booming” economy in the near future—and a bevy of the best and brightest of the European Commission that praises Greece for its rapid and effective reforms that enhanced its competitiveness. And to top it all, the ‘trickster’ Samaras was even able to deceive the economically astute and hardheaded Chinese and lure them to make investments in the infrastructure of the country and in real estate.
Only Professor Varoufakis is disabused of this deception and remains realistic about the dire prospects of Greece in the midst of this fictional euphoria that was able to entice cerebrally reputable institutions and people to see in this ‘mirage’ a “Greek Success Story.” It is rare to see such arrogant omniscience, of a second rate economist and Marxistoid to boot, attempting to trump all other economists and institutions that on a factual basis prognosticate an economic recovery of Greece.1 comment
By Con George-Kotzabasis May 3, 2013
The Samaras’ Government, like Atlas on his back, is carrying and attempting to transform and move Greece’s awesome heavy burden of unprecedented economic insolvency, since the ending of the Second-World-War, onto the stage of economic recovery and development. By succeeding in this most difficult enterprise it will also justify the positive, against the negative, economic remedies formulated in the second Memorandum by the European Union (EU), the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the so called Troika, for the purpose of saving Greece from economic catastrophe, and thus simultaneously enhance the credibility, and indeed, the survival of the EU as an institution of crucial influence and guidance in world affairs.
In this call to national salvation three politically and ideologically disparate parties 0f New Democracy, Pasok, (Panhellenic Socialist Movement) and the Democratic Left (Demar) decided to form a coalition government whose main goal was to keep Greece within the European Union and salvage the country, with the financial help of the latter, from economic bankruptcy that would have devastated the standard of living of the major part of the population and would have brought a proud nation to the status of indigence and economic despair for at least a generation. The two leaders, of Pasok and Demar, Evangelos Venizelos and Fotis Kouvelis, respectively, seeing the prodigious dangers the country was facing, raised their height to these dire circumstances and wisely decided to stand hand in hand with an ideological opponent, that is, the liberal conservative party of New Democracy and its leader Antonis Samaras, for the purpose of saving Greece from this imminent catastrophe. Hence the two leaders of the left put their ideological reputation and the future viability, and, indeed, the existence of their parties at immense risk by their decision to support a government led by Samaras, their erstwhile conservative opponent, and tie themselves and their parties to the fortunes of the latter, that is, whether the Samaras’ government will succeed or not in pulling the country out of the crisis and start the economic development that is so vital in overcoming the terrifying economic difficulties that Greece countenances at the moment.
There are grounds to make one believe that Greece economically and politically might be at a turning point. The Samaras government after succeeding in convincing its European partners, in exceedingly difficult negotiations, to provide the funds Greece needed, to ignite its economy and place the country on the path of development, under less onerous terms of the bailout than the initial ones the Europeans were demanding. This was a great success and a great achievement of the government and demonstrating at the same time its virtuoso skills in the art of negotiations.
The government announced last month that it had beat its budget targets for 2012. Finance Minister Stournaras claimed that the government was close to achieving a primary surplus—the budget surplus before taking into account payments on the debt—this year that would deliver, according to the mutual agreement of the parties, a further package of help from the Euro-zone. Employment statistics also showed, that within the span of the last two months the number of workers hired exceeded by nearly nine thousand the number of workers dismissed for the first time since the crisis. Furthermore, the recapitalization of the banks was on track and bound to be consummated in the next few weeks and the spigots of liquidity were therefore ready to be opened that would provide the private sector the funds for investment. Last week, the president of the National Bank stated that levels of liquidity are progressively established and 10 billion Euros could flow into the real economy. And already 50% of one thousand of small and large private enterprises announced that they were preparing to start investing within the current year. The internationally renowned telecommunications company Nokia is planning to establish a branch in Athens that would employ hundreds of highly skilled technicians and could become a magnet that would attract other foreign corporate giants to the country and thus by their presence would provide a continuous economic confidence for the country’s future. The Task Force of the European Commission last week issued favourable reports that the Greek economy was about to be re-ignited although it warned the government that small businesses had been dried of funds and their future operations were at risk. Also the credit ratings agency Moody’s estimated that Greece would have a positive rate of growth in 2014, after five years of negative growth.
Thus we see that there are ample encouraging signs that Greece might be at the crucial point of overcoming the crisis. It is most important therefore that the two parties, Pasok and Demar, that support the Samaras government, must first take note of these auspicious indices and that the current measures of the government are putting the country on the axis of economic development, and second, must not jeopardise this favourable situation by rigidly sticking to their parties position on other issues, such as labor relations and on the restructuring of the public sector, which are contrary to the overall current policy of the government and could endanger the economic progress the latter is making in overcoming the crisis.
The coalition partners must become fully aware that their political viability is tied up not with the sacred ideological position these parties hold on a variety of issues, contra the neo-liberal position of New Democracy, and pushing these toward their consummation, at this critical juncture whose primary goal is the salvation of the country, is a most imprudent diversion from the main goal. On the contrary, their political future is tied up with the success of the Samaras government in pulling the country out of the crisis. The electorate will not remember them and will not elect them for being pure to their ideological position but for their pragmatic support of a neo-liberal government that saved Greece from economic oblivion and mass poverty. In the event the Samaras administration fails in this complex immensely difficult and great task would likewise totally discredit and everlastingly condemn and cast to political oblivion both Pasok and Demar for their support of this failed government, no matter how favorable the former have been on other minor issues, in comparison to the major issue, that are dear to the hearts of the many. Their responsibility to the country and to themselves therefore lies in their pragmatic assessment of the policies of the government beyond ideology as to whether they are better placed to extricate the country from the crisis.
It is for this reason that in this process of the Renaissance of Greece, under the wise and strong leadership of Antonis Samaras, the cohesion of these partners in the salvation of the country is of unaccountable importance. Thus for Pasok and the Democratic Left not to miss the mark is to realize that the failure or success, in this uniquely historical venture of saving Greece, will determine their political viability in the future and not their ideological hues on secondary issues.1 comment