Greece in a Changing Europe: Between European Integration and Balkan Disintegration? (review)

It is one of the ironies of the current international order that whereas for some European states the end of the cold war has brought self-determination and freedom of action, for others it has unleashed great turbulence and dangers. Thus, Germany was reunited, the Baltic republics were restored to sovereignty, and all the nations of Eastern Europe are once again free to fashion their political destinies without outside dictation. On the other hand, for the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia the change proved fatal; for Czechoslovakia the end was peaceful but no less fatal, while Albania’s regime continues to unravel.

For Greece the 1990s have been a time of slow but steady entry into Europe’s process of integration, coupled with heightened anxiety and occasional diplomatic hyperventilation brought on by the spreading Balkan crisis and the continued confrontation with an unpredictable and ambitious Turkey. For the student of Greek foreign relations the primary areas of activity requiring systematic scrutiny are the country’s role—economic and diplomatic—in the European Union (EU), its responses to the ongoing Balkan turbulence precipitated by the disintegration of Yugoslavia, relations with Yugoslav Macedonia and with Albania, and the decades-old dialogue with Ankara over Cyprus and Aegean problems. Although no longer the main focus of Greek foreign orientation, relations with the United States and the Atlantic alliance also bear watching, particularly since periodically Washington plays a critical role in Balkan affairs and also proclaims its determination to help the parties in the Cyprus dispute settle their problem. The unfolding scene of the concerns and actions of Greek foreign policy is not easy to follow from a distance, especially since economic relations with the EU involve complex and constantly shifting evidence, as is the case with the prospects for Greece’s entry into the proposed European Monetary Union (EMU). It is therefore fortunate that, with increasing regularity, books such as Greece in a Changing Europe appear to bring the record up to date (almost!) and to give fresh food for thought.

This slender volume comprises ten essays of varying lengths and pretensions that originated as presentations at a conference held in June 1994 at the London School of Economics. In a wide-ranging introduction, coeditor Kevin Featherstone provides a comprehensive and highly readable overview of the issues addressed by the other authors and summarizes their conclusions. He addresses in particular three overarching themes: Greece’s performance as an EU member, the impact of EU membership on Greek domestic and foreign policies, and Greek efforts to deal with the changing international environment. He finds that, although criticism of Greece’s conduct within the EU has at times been unfair or exaggerated, in the 1980s and early 1990s the performance of the Greek economy was poor and the country’s standing in Europe weakened. The record of Greek compliance with EU rules appears to be mixed, especially in view of the EU Commission’s rather drastic reaction to the Greek trade embargo on Yugoslav Macedonia. Nevertheless, Featherstone concludes, EU membership represents for Greece “a strong modernizing and liberalizing force.”

In an all too brief and undeveloped essay, James Pettifer maintains that Western Europeans and the “American oriented international media” misunderstand Greek political culture, particularly its “conservatism” and disdain for “modernist technocratic ideology,” while the country’s “heterogeneous ethnic composition” has been misperceived as “complete homogeneity,” especially because of the powerful influence of the Orthodox Church. Pettifer blames Greek political elites for cultivating and uncorking the “nationalist genie,” thus giving rise to irrational and dangerous public reactions to international developments, and for failing to appreciate the emergence of “new and legitimate Balkan nationalism.” These are all important arguments. However, the author’s references to an undefined political culture remain ambiguous and raise more questions than they attempt to answer.

The volume’s first section ends with a short but highly informative “comment...