Greek Doctors With[out] Borders

AIM Athens, 23/11/1999

Speaking to Greek media, after the Doctors Without Borders were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the president of their Greek section, Odysseas Voudouris, gave his interpretation of humanitarian action, which, he argued, is "circumvented today by military alliances and big powers." Nevertheless, he added that the decision of the Norwegian committee "reinforces the conviction that the demand for peace is closely connected with the independent action of the non-governmental organizations." And he concluded: "This award is for us one more incentive to follow faithfully our original principles, among which the most fundamental are those of impartial action and solidarity with all suffering people without political, religious or racial discrimination." (Kathimerini, 16/10/99) In contradistinction to this clearly political interpretation, the Greek public had the opportunity to hear a week later another equally political interpretation, made by the General Secretary of DWB, Jean-Marie Kindermans: "The DWB is a humanitarian organization with the double mandate to provide independent aid and to disclose crimes against humanity and other injustices that are discovered in the field of action"(Eleftherotypia, 22/10/99). From the exchanges, which appeared in the Greek press, the reader could detect easily that the Greek section forgot the second part of the mandate of the DWB and it did not (want to) realize that accomplishing the former, the much desired independent aid, depended very much on the disclosure of the causes of misery, be they crimes against humanity or other injustices. Moreover, as a consequence, it could not understand that the issue was not whether one would help all the victims or only some, but on what basis one spoke of victims. As Philippe Biberson, president of the French section, explained: "When you act in time of war you must comply with the regulations, because humanitarian action in wartime is dangerous and endangers human lives" (Eleftherotypia, 7/11/99).

On 21 October, for the first time, the Greek public learned that the International Council of DWB expelled the Greek section because of its action during the conflict in Kosovo. The news was published on 17 October by the French newspaper Le Monde. When O. Voudouris was asked to comment on it, he declared flatly that the Greek section was not expelled, but that its relations with the organization had frozen and that the issue will be discussed in the end of November. Once this argument could not hold anymore, he asserted that the expulsion was decided on 24 September, with the Greek section absent. He also suggested that the Greek section was expelled because it wanted to help both Serbs and the Albanians of Kosovo, while all other sections focussed their action exclusively on Albanian refugees. In response to these arguments Mr. J-M Kindermans reaffirmed for the Greek media that the decision for dismissal was taken unanimously by the other 18 national sections on 12 June. And, he explained: "Of course we wanted to organize humanitarian missions to Serbia, but the Milosevic regime in any case refused to give us visas. There existed no preconditions that guaranteed the independence and impartiality of the mission. So we decided that we could not intervene in Serbia. It was a common decision. In addition, there was the issue of ethnic cleansing and of crimes against humanity in Kosovo"(Eleftherotypia, 21/10/99). The president of the Greek section responded by arguing that during the war a general cleavage developed between the western rich countries and the rest of the world, which affected humanitarian organizations, enclaving them in the logic of the politics of the respective societies they were coming from. The international organization of DWB saw a humanitarian crime for which the responsibility laid with the regime of Milosevic and the Serb population in its entirety in some instances. Therefore, they concluded that this population did and does not deserve humanitarian help since the bombing was an act of reprisal. On the contrary, the Greek DWB like all other Greek humanitarian organizations felt responsible to condemn the barbarism of the bombing and to organize humanitarian missions to Serbia and to Kosovo, helping equally the "Albanophone" and "Serbophone" inhabitants. O. Voudouris was even scornful to the other humanitarian organizations from the states that bombed Yugoslavia, none of which, he argued, sent a mission to Kosovo and Serbia. "In other words we must help the Albanians but it makes no sense to help the Serbs - all humanitarian organizations in Kosovo did what NATO wanted them to do, said what NATO wanted them to say, went where NATO wanted them to go." He concluded that the Greek section was the only one that maintained the position appropriate to impartial humanitarian action and saved the honor of the DWB (Eleftherotypia, 22/10 & Kathimerini, 24/10/99). The Greek section explained in all instances that it does not intend to either stop its operations or to change its name, whatever the decision of the international organization.

In the two weeks that followed the Greek press was bombarded by statements and counter-statements of the two sides. One could read that the Greek section "violated the norms of political impartiality of the organization", or that "the Greek doctors had direct consultation with the government of Belgrade and with the Greek embassy" - something that is "explicitly forbidden by the organization". (P. Biberson, Kathimerini 22/10/99). James Orbinski, international president of DWB, argued that the Greek doctors held "a non-neutral and non-objective position." He added "they made declarations favorable to the Serbs and unfavorable to the Albanians who were victims of ethnic cleansing." And he concluded saying that "the Greek section likes to be victimized since we offered them the possibility to become a representative office instead of an operational office, but they refused" (Vima, 23/10/99). The president of the Greek section countered that: "These organizations have ceased to be voluntary organizations, instead they play power games. I continue to believe that the large majority of volunteers acts on the basis of humanitarian incentives, those however who make decisions transgress their will and the principles of voluntarism" (Avghi 24/10/99). The President of the French section continued by arguing that the Greek section did not comply with the general regulations concerning the functioning of the organization under conditions of war. He added that their move to send medication to Pristina showed a particular support by organizing an irregular convoy; that is where the problem lies. However, he explained, it is completely misplaced to say that the rest of the movement only wanted to help the Albanians. O. Voudouris, seconded by founding president S. Papaspyropoulos, answered by asking whether "the effort of the Greek government to rest from NATO and the Serbs a "humanitarian corridor", which they simply used, constituted "collaboration". What then about the French, Belgian and Dutch DWB who entered Kosovo through the "humanitarian corridor" opened by NATO troops (ie by their governments) and with which they collaborated hand in hand" (Eleftherotypia, 7/11/99).

In fact, Greek public opinion was convinced, according to an editorial of the newspaper Eleftherotypia (22/10/99), that the decision to dismiss the Greek section ran against the principles of humanitarianism. The Greek section, and along with it the large majority of Greeks, seemed convinced that not only had it been punished wrongly, but that it was also a victim of some kind of a conspiracy. Parallel to the truth it purported, it allowed no room for a possible different truth, there could only be wrong beyond that. This is not only evident in the eventual scornful remarks against all the other sections, but on the preconceptions surrounding its analysis of the same reality. Its president repeatedly argued in exclusive moralist manner, almost never responding to substantial questions that were raised by rare voices in the Greek media, which did not automatically sided with the Greek section. If the Greek section did not agree with the fundamental principles of the DWB, why did it continue staying in the movement? Why did they celebrate loudly and even presented as theirs the Nobel Prize, since they already knew they had ceased being part of the awardees? Did they only find out now that all the other organizations went where NATO goes? Did they not know that Milosevic refused to give permission to the international organization to enter Serbia and Kosovo? (R. Someritis, Vima 25/10/99). Is it possible that those who till yesterday were models, in a few months, became instruments of NATO or of some state or other services? Is it possible that we believe that the only humanists can be found in Greece and that everybody else, European or not, is an instrument of dark centers? Was not the Greek section responsible to inform its supporters of its expulsion before it was published in Le Monde? (S. Polimilis, Eleftherotypia 25/10/99). Why did the Greek section conceal from the Greek public its expulsion and even celebrated the awarding of the Nobel Prize instead of having resigned earlier on since it disagreed with the principles of the international organization? Why, when it could not anymore deny its expulsion, its representatives began to utter strong criticisms about expediency and frays against their colleagues? Why after all hide their expulsion from an organization that was obeying to NATO, as they argued later? (T. Papadopoulou, Eleftherotypia, 4/11/99)

However, it was largely defensive and unsubstantiated articles that appeared in almost all newspapers, attacking the international organization of the DWB, NATO, President Clinton or the EU, reawakening the blind and irrational passions that dominated Greek public opinion during the Kosovo crisis. Using stereotyped hate speech, anti- western and nationalist rhetoric, both print and audiovisual media made sure to denounce the "racists," the "mercenaries of NATO" or "of the CIA." A characteristic example could be found even in a liberal newspaper like Eleftherotypia, where one could read: "During the gangster-styled raid against Yugoslavia we had an opportunity to demystify the role of certain organizations, the so called "non-governmental" or falsely "humanitarian" (G. Votsis, 27/10/99). As Professor N. Mouzelis pointed out: "All these articles in the Greek media, which present the DWB and the committee that awarded the Nobel Prize to them as instruments of NATO and the Americans, demonstrate far less the quality of these organizations than the completely paranoiac character of Greek nationalism - a nationalism that sees everywhere «solicitation» and conspiracies against the chosen people, which always is correct and is constantly abused by the mighty of the world" (Vima, 7/11/99).

The Greek government itself was asked to act upon the expulsion of the Greek section, and even debated the matter in a session of the small cabinet! Yet, in its official statements, it only made careful remarks praising the work of the Greek DWB. However, many deputies from the governing party, not to speak of the opposition, along with the media, found an opportunity not only to be critical of the DWB, but also to question the impartiality and independence of non-governmental organizations as a whole. The notorious deputy of conservative opposition New Democracy, E. Haitidis, well known for his intolerance, stated in the Greek Parliament that the DWB with the expulsion of the Greek section proved that they simply serve NATO and asked the government whether the activities of other non-governmental organization that show "subjugation and dependence to foreign interests" are controlled. M. Evert, deputy of the same party, argued that it would be tragic if doctors chose to help people according to their nationality, religion, or color and that the government, particularly the minister of health must denounce the decision of the international organization. Former Minister of Justice of PASOK, G.A. Mangakis, stated that with this action the international organization endangers seriously its moral standing because it subjects it to the barbarian policies of the new world order. N. Sifounakis, deputy of PASOK, argued that non-governmental organizations, which are unable to be autonomous from political power and its expedience, have no reason to exist any more. Stelios Papathemelis, deputy of PASOK, well known for his nationalist rhetoric, spoke of the hypocrites of the international community, declaring that the expulsion of the Greek section was "a title of distinction". The leader of the Progressive Left Coalition, N. Konstantopoulos, argued that the expulsion was clearly politically motivated, which is incompatible with the humane character of this movement (Vradyni, 23/10/99). The European Deputy of the same party, A. Alavanos, in a question in the European Parliament, called "morally inadmissible" the reasons for which the Greek section was expelled. He argued that this is an issue which concerns the European Union since most of the money for the projects of the DWB come from its budget. He then added that a non-governmental organization should not function in an authoritarian way, along national domineering and political expedience. The spokesperson for DIKKI, a party of the left, stated that the DWB follow the path of their founder Bernard Kouchner, who after taking over the position of the administrator of the Serbian province of Kosovo, opens the way for the realization of the plan for the dissolution of an independent sovereign state, Yugoslavia (Eleftheros Typos and Avghi, 23/10/99). The Greek Communist Party called the DWB "an executive instrument of NATO." (Eleftherotypia, 25/10/99) PASOK deputy S. Manikas asked for the intervention of the Greek Parliament to have the expulsion revoked. He argued that it should object strongly both to the international organization and to the Parliament of Norway which awarded the Prize (Eleftherotypia, 27/10/99).

One of the most characteristic public statements of support, which summed up well the feelings of the large majority of Greeks, came from the President of the Doctors of the World-Greece, Theofilos Rosenberg. He stated that the Greek DWB must be congratulated for their courage and differentiation from the international section. He also said that non-governmental organizations must be able to organize independent missions and must enjoy true independence from foreign centers. There is a moral issue, he added, when money collected in Greece is spent after prior authorization abroad. The initiative of the Greek DWB broke this vicious circle. Greek NGOs must be "carriers of Greek civilization" and must "make evident Greek humanness and solidarity." He added that the position that we want the Nobel Prize only for the "Albanophones" and not the Serbs is hypocritical (Eleftherotypia, 22/10/99). The Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights questioned the correctness of the decision over the Nobel Prize and added that: "According to sound social consciousness, the real award winners was the Greek section of the DWB" (Eleftherotypia, 25/10/99). Two other Greek NGOs, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, while distancing themselves completely from the above positions of certitude, concentrated on the important issue facing NGOs in the new world, that of the opposition between the national interests of the society they are part of and the interests of the international organizations they are members of, both political in nature (Eleftherotypia, 22/10/99 & Ta Nea, 6/11/99). The Greek Doctors of the World's attitude towards all this "support," that was in fact one of the most serious attacks against NGOs in Greece, was to accept it all, not ever distancing themselves, but on the contrary willingly participating in one-sided hysterical debates. In the end, Voudouris and Papaspyropoulos even used that support in their reply to the international colleagues: "the incomprehensible and unfair decision of the International Office, has created and unprecedented wave of support to the Greek section from the whole Greek society" (Eleftherotypia, 7/11/99). And their organization decided to rename itself "Greek Doctors Without Borders" (sic).

This opposition between the Greek section and the International organization of the DWB revealed the "national consensus" of public opinion, or, as one analyst called it, "the mightiness of sovereign opinion" in Greece. After the so-called "Macedonian question," the "Imia/Kardak crisis," the complex Greek-Turkish relations and the Cyprus issue, the bombing of Yugoslavia, and the debate over "non-existing minorities" in Greece, once more, during these two weeks of apparent debate the Greek public was not enlightened about what actually happened. Worse, investigating the real events and questioning the prevailing interpretation was hardly possible. "How can one dare think differently from the way the large majority of the Greek people think about each problem? How can one dare have a different opinion?" Objecting to conspiracy or spy theories appears as an offence "to the sanctities of national consensus." As it happens every time in such instances "the game of democracy", in other words, holding different opinions was replaced by "pre-established certitudes, pre-ordained national myths." And the analyst concluded: "Have we suddenly become partisans of the one and only truth, have we adopted the way in which opinions circulate in authoritarian regimes?" (E. Kanelis, Vima, 28/10/99). Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon, it is far too old, for a society to rid itself of it with ease, and what more, to realize the price it has been paying for it. On the contrary, it was easier to reaffirm again "the Greek borders of isolationism and estrangement from international organizations. And many are the Greeks who are proud of these borders and do whatever they can to strengthen them. The Greek DWB will be the first to have achieved it in spite of their name" (A. Damianidi, Avghi, 5/10/99).

Nafsika Papanikolatos (AIM)