Post by Kefalus on Nov 21, 2007 5:20:03 GMT -5
WHAT THE RADICALS WOULD SAY TODAY
Gerasimos Arsenis
The Radicals would want us to celebrate the 140th anniversary from the Union of the Ionian Islands with Greece without speeches, without praises for them – praises they did not hear when they were alive. They would want us to look at our life today and our plans for the future, through their experience, their struggles and their mistakes.
Certainly they would be greatly satisfied with the establishment of Democracy in Greece. Being among the developed countries of Europe, an equal member of the European Union makes the country capable of confronting its social problems, something that seemed impossible 140 years ago. They would certainly be proud of us, of our part in the struggle for Democracy in our homeland and of our contribution to science and economic development.
But they would surely be sad at the death of the Ionian culture, which enriched the cultural development of Greece but unfortunately was weakened to the point of becoming obsolete.
They would be sad seeing the vision of the European Union in the hands of bankers and accountants. For them Europe was a cultural dream, a Union of Nations that could promote the basic principles of the French Revolution. They would be uneasy at the developments in the Balkan States as the vision of Rigas Ferreos was alive in their conscience. Today they would be appalled seeing the barbaric attacks by forces outside he Balkan peninsula that caused partition of Nations.
The list is long, but counting the positive and negative events, I believe that the Radicals would be satisfied with the progress made in the Ionian Islands and Greece in the last 140 years. But as real Kefallonians they would point out the mistakes made and perhaps give us advice on how to avoid more in the future.
First: Attention to the reading of history.
History must not be a glorified myth. It must contain not only the heroic acts and the sacrifices, but also the betrayals, the compromises, the personal ambitions and most of all the devious manipulations of the international factor. A falsified history is the worst trap for the younger generation as it imprisons its freedom. I am certain that the Radicals would not want to hear the anniversary speeches in which the Union was the result of their struggle and the rebellion of the people of the Ionian Islands, because that is not the historical truth. Of course the revolution against the British was a demand of the people, who gave their own battles and shed their own blood, especially in Kefallonia. Great Britain however, opposed the Union because the Ionian Islands constituted vital space for their military and political suzerainty in the area. In November 26, 1850 with the movement at its highest point, the Radical M.P. Ioannis Typaldos Dottoratos introduced the resolution for the Union “Because the suzerainty and nationality of the people are rights natural and inalienable”. The reading of the resolution in the Parliament was not allowed to continue, but it was known to every heptanisian as they had copies at home. The rebellion of the Radicals did not go unanswered by Great Britain. It was followed by persecutions, arrests, imprisonments and exiles. In the vacuum that ensued, the character of radicalism changed, as did its leaders.
In 1863 conditions in the area were different and Great Britain wanted to extend its influence in Greece. A new regal dynasty was installed and Great Britain itself promoted the Union. Of course that fulfilled the dream of the people but it certainly was not the result of their rebellion: it was the result of the new strategic plan of Great Britain.
The message of the story is that a sacred idea alienated from its patriotic and social substance can be used deceitfully by the international factor to cover its aims and its strategic objectives.
Second: Patriotism and Social Radicalism.
These concepts played a basic role in the progress of the Ionian Islands and their Union with Greece, but they are important today as well, in Cyprus where the Cypriots rejected the Anan plan, and in Greece. The Radicals were greatly influenced by the democratic ideals of the French Revolution. They believed in the establishment of Democracy and wished to secure social equality and justice.
After the banishment of their leaders, the political proposal of the radicals weakened. The new leader believed that radicalism was not to be identified with “socialism” or “communism”. For him only one thing mattered. Union. The clash between the old and new radicalism went through different phases. When in 1862 Great Britain proposed the Union, the old radicals rejected it, seeing behind it the aim of the British to control the newly founded Greek State. They could not betray their political beliefs and take part in activities that served other intentions. Accordingly they proposed the “suspension” of the national issue.
The genuine radicals believed that patriotic aims without social substance could easily be exploited by the International Powers. For them, no social reform could have political results without an independent and democratic homeland. They would like to convey their bitter experience to us today in the long talks in Cyprus and Greece about shaping a new national strategy for the Greek people.
Third: Ionian Islands and Cyprus – Parallel lives.
The Radicals would be impressed today by the similarities in Cyprus and the Ionian Islands. And certainly if we had paid attention to their experiences, their problems, their struggles and - why not – their mistakes, we could have avoided many of the problems and mistakes in Cyprus. We should focus on five points:
1. The presence of Great Britain.
In both cases the power behind-the-scene is Great Britain. In the Ionian Islands obvious and undisguised, in Cyprus, hidden but certainly the one pulling the strings.
2. Popular suzerainty.
For the British both the Ionian Islands and Cyprus are areas of strategic importance. They want a political and military presence because the islands constitute the necessary infrastructure in controlling the wider area. The population of the islands was of no importance to them and its will was never of any consequence. In 1850 the heptanisians wanted the Union with Greece. 100 years later the Cypriots also voted overwhelmingly (92%) for the Union. In both cases the political will of the people was dealt with banishments, imprisonments and hangings.
3. High Judge – Great Britain
As popular suzerainty was not an institution recognized by the great Empire, the proposed “political” solutions required a High Judge. In the Ionian Islands Great Britain was the “protector” of the “free and independent State of the United States of the Ionian Islands”. In the political solution attempted in Cyprus three foreign judges would have the final judicial, executive and legislative power.
4. Partition.
Partition was a trick invented in the case of Cyprus. This satanic idea goes back many years. In 1851 Lord Palmeston, Prime Minister of Great Britain had examined the case of partitioning the Islands relinquishing the islands of Leucas, Kefallonia, Ithaca Zakynthos and Kithira and turning Korfu and Paxoi into colonies. They even tried to justify the partition noting that “Corfu differs from the other islands in the race and feelings of its people and its geographical location”. Their plan did not succeed in 1851 but came back to life in 1857 when it failed again after the spirited resistance of the Parliament of the Ionian State.
So the partition imposed on Cyprus has its roots into the deep tradition of the British Empire.
5. De-militarization.
An independent State has the indisputable right to provide for its own safety and defense. Without it, its independence is empty of substance. The Anan plan imposes the de-militarization of Cyprus, allowing foreign military powers in the island. Cyprus has no right to its own defense system and it cannot have part in any defensive activities of the European Union. This is not a new concept either. It was attempted and imposed on Paxoi and Corfu in 1864 in order to serve the special interests of Great Britain. It must be noted that the inhabitants of Corfu opposed it and stopped the demolition of the castle that was planned.
There are probably many more similarities in the ploys and diplomatic moves of Great Britain in the cases of both the Ionian Islands and Cyprus. These five points though are enough to show that if we are not careful and do not study our own history, history will repeat itself with dire consequences for us.
The Radicals left this life believing that radicalism was defeated in Greece. I would like to tell them that is not so. Perhaps their aims did not materialize. Perhaps the Union succeeded for reasons other than those they believed in. But radicalism lives in us all, it is part of our DNA.
Being the proud descendants of the Radicals, we want to tell them we have the same resoluteness, the same fighting spirit, the same radical ideas and we are determined to go ahead for a better homeland, free, with social justice for the advance and prosperity of our islands.
Gerasimos Arsenis
The Radicals would want us to celebrate the 140th anniversary from the Union of the Ionian Islands with Greece without speeches, without praises for them – praises they did not hear when they were alive. They would want us to look at our life today and our plans for the future, through their experience, their struggles and their mistakes.
Certainly they would be greatly satisfied with the establishment of Democracy in Greece. Being among the developed countries of Europe, an equal member of the European Union makes the country capable of confronting its social problems, something that seemed impossible 140 years ago. They would certainly be proud of us, of our part in the struggle for Democracy in our homeland and of our contribution to science and economic development.
But they would surely be sad at the death of the Ionian culture, which enriched the cultural development of Greece but unfortunately was weakened to the point of becoming obsolete.
They would be sad seeing the vision of the European Union in the hands of bankers and accountants. For them Europe was a cultural dream, a Union of Nations that could promote the basic principles of the French Revolution. They would be uneasy at the developments in the Balkan States as the vision of Rigas Ferreos was alive in their conscience. Today they would be appalled seeing the barbaric attacks by forces outside he Balkan peninsula that caused partition of Nations.
The list is long, but counting the positive and negative events, I believe that the Radicals would be satisfied with the progress made in the Ionian Islands and Greece in the last 140 years. But as real Kefallonians they would point out the mistakes made and perhaps give us advice on how to avoid more in the future.
First: Attention to the reading of history.
History must not be a glorified myth. It must contain not only the heroic acts and the sacrifices, but also the betrayals, the compromises, the personal ambitions and most of all the devious manipulations of the international factor. A falsified history is the worst trap for the younger generation as it imprisons its freedom. I am certain that the Radicals would not want to hear the anniversary speeches in which the Union was the result of their struggle and the rebellion of the people of the Ionian Islands, because that is not the historical truth. Of course the revolution against the British was a demand of the people, who gave their own battles and shed their own blood, especially in Kefallonia. Great Britain however, opposed the Union because the Ionian Islands constituted vital space for their military and political suzerainty in the area. In November 26, 1850 with the movement at its highest point, the Radical M.P. Ioannis Typaldos Dottoratos introduced the resolution for the Union “Because the suzerainty and nationality of the people are rights natural and inalienable”. The reading of the resolution in the Parliament was not allowed to continue, but it was known to every heptanisian as they had copies at home. The rebellion of the Radicals did not go unanswered by Great Britain. It was followed by persecutions, arrests, imprisonments and exiles. In the vacuum that ensued, the character of radicalism changed, as did its leaders.
In 1863 conditions in the area were different and Great Britain wanted to extend its influence in Greece. A new regal dynasty was installed and Great Britain itself promoted the Union. Of course that fulfilled the dream of the people but it certainly was not the result of their rebellion: it was the result of the new strategic plan of Great Britain.
The message of the story is that a sacred idea alienated from its patriotic and social substance can be used deceitfully by the international factor to cover its aims and its strategic objectives.
Second: Patriotism and Social Radicalism.
These concepts played a basic role in the progress of the Ionian Islands and their Union with Greece, but they are important today as well, in Cyprus where the Cypriots rejected the Anan plan, and in Greece. The Radicals were greatly influenced by the democratic ideals of the French Revolution. They believed in the establishment of Democracy and wished to secure social equality and justice.
After the banishment of their leaders, the political proposal of the radicals weakened. The new leader believed that radicalism was not to be identified with “socialism” or “communism”. For him only one thing mattered. Union. The clash between the old and new radicalism went through different phases. When in 1862 Great Britain proposed the Union, the old radicals rejected it, seeing behind it the aim of the British to control the newly founded Greek State. They could not betray their political beliefs and take part in activities that served other intentions. Accordingly they proposed the “suspension” of the national issue.
The genuine radicals believed that patriotic aims without social substance could easily be exploited by the International Powers. For them, no social reform could have political results without an independent and democratic homeland. They would like to convey their bitter experience to us today in the long talks in Cyprus and Greece about shaping a new national strategy for the Greek people.
Third: Ionian Islands and Cyprus – Parallel lives.
The Radicals would be impressed today by the similarities in Cyprus and the Ionian Islands. And certainly if we had paid attention to their experiences, their problems, their struggles and - why not – their mistakes, we could have avoided many of the problems and mistakes in Cyprus. We should focus on five points:
1. The presence of Great Britain.
In both cases the power behind-the-scene is Great Britain. In the Ionian Islands obvious and undisguised, in Cyprus, hidden but certainly the one pulling the strings.
2. Popular suzerainty.
For the British both the Ionian Islands and Cyprus are areas of strategic importance. They want a political and military presence because the islands constitute the necessary infrastructure in controlling the wider area. The population of the islands was of no importance to them and its will was never of any consequence. In 1850 the heptanisians wanted the Union with Greece. 100 years later the Cypriots also voted overwhelmingly (92%) for the Union. In both cases the political will of the people was dealt with banishments, imprisonments and hangings.
3. High Judge – Great Britain
As popular suzerainty was not an institution recognized by the great Empire, the proposed “political” solutions required a High Judge. In the Ionian Islands Great Britain was the “protector” of the “free and independent State of the United States of the Ionian Islands”. In the political solution attempted in Cyprus three foreign judges would have the final judicial, executive and legislative power.
4. Partition.
Partition was a trick invented in the case of Cyprus. This satanic idea goes back many years. In 1851 Lord Palmeston, Prime Minister of Great Britain had examined the case of partitioning the Islands relinquishing the islands of Leucas, Kefallonia, Ithaca Zakynthos and Kithira and turning Korfu and Paxoi into colonies. They even tried to justify the partition noting that “Corfu differs from the other islands in the race and feelings of its people and its geographical location”. Their plan did not succeed in 1851 but came back to life in 1857 when it failed again after the spirited resistance of the Parliament of the Ionian State.
So the partition imposed on Cyprus has its roots into the deep tradition of the British Empire.
5. De-militarization.
An independent State has the indisputable right to provide for its own safety and defense. Without it, its independence is empty of substance. The Anan plan imposes the de-militarization of Cyprus, allowing foreign military powers in the island. Cyprus has no right to its own defense system and it cannot have part in any defensive activities of the European Union. This is not a new concept either. It was attempted and imposed on Paxoi and Corfu in 1864 in order to serve the special interests of Great Britain. It must be noted that the inhabitants of Corfu opposed it and stopped the demolition of the castle that was planned.
There are probably many more similarities in the ploys and diplomatic moves of Great Britain in the cases of both the Ionian Islands and Cyprus. These five points though are enough to show that if we are not careful and do not study our own history, history will repeat itself with dire consequences for us.
The Radicals left this life believing that radicalism was defeated in Greece. I would like to tell them that is not so. Perhaps their aims did not materialize. Perhaps the Union succeeded for reasons other than those they believed in. But radicalism lives in us all, it is part of our DNA.
Being the proud descendants of the Radicals, we want to tell them we have the same resoluteness, the same fighting spirit, the same radical ideas and we are determined to go ahead for a better homeland, free, with social justice for the advance and prosperity of our islands.