“Turkey’s reactions are not caused by “appeasement” but by an active foreign policy pursued by this government,” said the parliamentary representative of the Southwestern Democratic Party, Makis Voridis, in response to what former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras said earlier in the debate in the plenary session on the establishment of a committee of inquiry into the interceptions submitted by PASOK.
Mr. Voridis began his statement by saying: “This government is the one that has done the 12 nm in the Ionian Sea, it is the one that has done the biggest arms program the country has ever known, that has acquired the frigates, the Rafalle and the F-35. It is the government that for the first time in post-communist history has sent the Greek army (frigates) to defend Cyprus. It is this government that has developed strategic alliances that are clearly defence-oriented. It is the one that has made the EEZ with Egypt. It is the one that has now made contracts and is mining where Turkey’s pseudo-memorandum with Libya is supposed to exist. It is the government that has made the Marine Parks by extending its influence and the exercise of sovereignty to the maximum allowed by international treaties.” Stressing that “it is the government that has done all this” he underlined: “Turkey’s reactions are not caused by ‘appeasement’ but by an active foreign policy which has indeed cornered Turkey. It is its reaction to this foreign policy that is being pursued and not the other way round.” “If all that this government has done, why didn’t previous governments do it?” and “if Kyriakos Mitsotakis has national “deficits” why has he twice got 41% in elections? Why has his policies been rewarded?” he asked.
He noted that “the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis has done something unique in Greek post-communist history: after seven years of government, it is still ahead of any of its political rivals by 12 to 15 points”, adding that this should be weighed “before making nihilistic references”.
As for the attitude of the opposition parties that left the debate, Mr. Voridis said that “this shows that they were not interested in the debate of the proposal but only in the result”, that “the Parliament should have committed in advance that it would vote for their proposal so that they would stay to debate their proposal”. “They were not at all interested in this debate that they themselves have caused,” he noted:
Rejecting criticisms of “institutional diversion of the Southwest” and “constitutional coups”, he said that “those who accuse us of institutional aberration are those who have deep contempt for judicial officials” noting that in the illegal wiretapping case, it was the prosecutors who investigated, indicted and tried, and convicted the four for the illegal wiretapping of Predator in the first instance. It cannot, he said, “when the decisions of judicial officials suit us, they can be good and we applaud them, and when our political plan is not served, they are enablers, sellouts and deserving of our derision. The two do not go together if you respect the judiciary. And anyone who respects “institutional order” – as we are told – cannot ask the Supreme Court prosecutor to apologize to them for their judicial judgment. And they are even asking that he be brought to the Commission in an iron bandage, because he has to answer to Mr. Androulakis.”
The parliamentary representative of the New Democracy Party pointed out that it was the Parliament that decided that when the commander of the NSA was summoned to a hearing in the Committee on Institutions and Transparency the day before yesterday, it should be done in a confidential manner as “there is a critical issue concerning national defence, security, that should be protected and that these issues should not become the stuff of public debate” and added that this was what Mr. “His democratic duty is not to violate the laws, to violate the decisions of the Parliament, to violate the confidentiality and to violate the security function of the NIS,” he said. Voridis, and reiterated, as he did in the debate on the side issue discussed in the plenary, his argument why the control of the NIS on wiretapping falls under national security issues and mentioned what has been done since 2022 regarding the investigation of wiretapping.
.
