Greece and European Union, European Economic Committee (Essay Sample)

Introduction
The fate of Greece as a permanent member of EU was sealed on June 1959, when Greece submitted a request to be a part of the EU, then known as European Economic Committee (EEC). However, the Athens agreement, became functional, after two years, that is, after the fall of seven years of dictator rule, with the subsequent establishment of the third Greek Republic in the year 1974. Soon thereafter, on July 12, 1975, under the leadership of its Prime minister, Konstantinous Karamanlis, the decision that the country would strive to be a full member of European Economic Committee (EEC) was made. As a result, the state of Greece was subjugated to EEC in the year 1981 from being associate member to a permanent member. Such a prospect meant that Greece would be the fourth country after Britain, Denmark and Ireland that would have this status, and one that would pave the way for further integration between EU and Greece going forward.[Dia Anagnostou, 2005, “Deepening democracy or defending the nation? The Europeanization of minority rights and Greek citizenship,” West European Politics 28 (2005): 335–357.] [George Andreou, “EU cohesion policy in Greece: patterns of governance and Europeanization,” South European Society & Politics 11 (2006): 241– 259.]
Greece, faced with war with Turkey, under leadership of its Prime minister, Karamanlis, decided to reduce its dependence on its traditional ally, the United States of America, and perform a careful balancing act to look for alternatives within neighbouring countries and international institutions. In EEC, the Greek saw a platform to enhance its independence and restore its confidence, and secure itself financial resources and large market for the modernization of the socioeconomic system of the country. Interestingly, the support to entry of Greece came from all the nine member states and EEC saw in this partnership “an unbroken power of attraction”. Captivatingly, the integration of Greece was based on member’s perception of Greece as being a liberal market based economy society, and the entry was permitted because of Greece’s ability to represent ethos, which were western in nature, because of its partnership with the USA. Importantly, not long after the transformation happened, the regime at Greece made public the announcement that to safeguard and promote the longevity of the country’s democratic institution such a measure was necessary, as well as securing the conditions for the modernization of Greece socio economic system.[Dimitri A Sotiropoulos, “The EU’s impact on the Greek welfare state: Europeanization on paper?” Journal of European Social Policy 14 (2004): 267– 282.]
Nonetheless, in reality, the political pressures for Greece to join the EU was apparent and vividly evident and visible to all the member states, which, until then, had only minor ties and association agreement with southern states, the likes of Greece and other smaller countries near its region. Further, a commission report prepared in the year 1976, questioned the preparedness on both sides to be a part of each other under the same union. The report concluded that since structural orientation of Greece was very different, in its economic and social structure, which it would be difficult for Greece to continue with the regulations EU would initiate. There was a serious concern whether Greece would be able to live up to the expectations of EU. By the late 1990s, the politics in Greek was unmindful of the influence that EU would have on the Greek’s social, economic and political circles. However, at this time, a conceptual frame of “Europeanization of Greece” was gradually being formed, and going forward, this would become the buzzword from politicians, academicians and media personnel.[Susannah Verney, “Euroscepticism in southern Europe: a diachronic perspective,” South European Society & Politics 16 (2011): 1–29.]
The judgment on either side changed in the 1990s with Greece on the fringes of finalizing the economic and monetary integration with EU. The drive to be a part of EU mainly emanated from conservative new democracy and euro communists. Greece, by showing greater appreciation of EU’s policies, initiated measures that fostered cooperation of abiding by and implementing the policies of the European Union on a level and extent that missing sorely in the decade of the 80s. This was instrumental as it gave the impression to the EU that the need of Greek authorities, based on greater development, will transform Greece as a more institutional member of EU.[Kevin Featherstone, “Europeanization and the centre periphery: the case of Greece in the 1990s,” South European Politics & Society 3 (1998): 23–39.]
Europeanization, circulated widely in literature since 90s, by Ladrech, was a process that analysed the effects of succession of prospective country to EU in its political systems, society and economy. In other words, it also meant that through the interventionist approach of the EU the state would be strengthened. Since each state has its balance of power shared between the state and society in a proportion that best suits it governance, therefore, the process will have consequences unique in nature with respect to each countries which will have different features. But, on theoretical ground, the effects of the process are more powerful for state which has a political system centralized in nature than being federal (spread between a number of authorities). The centralised nature of Greece state, with its widespread centralised structure, with the central government being the absolute hegemon, was chiefly the reason the political elites in Greek did not intended to join EU. Further, it was EUs most challenging job given the nature of Greek state to bring conformity to the standards that governed both Greece and EU.[Theofanis Exadaktylos & Claudio M. Radaelli, “Research design in European studies: the case of Europeanization,” Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2009):507–530] [Spyros Economides, “The Europeanization of foreign policy in Greece,” West European Politics 28 (2005): 471–491.]
The process of modernization for Greece has been top down in that it focusses “on the dimensions, mechanisms, and outcomes by which European processes and institutions affect domestic level process and institutions”. But, a widespread census is now taken for granted in terms of pro EU stance by most in the country. The attitude to being a member of EU is now viewed with increasing acknowledgment in the public opinion. The Greek presidency of the council was hen the euphoria for EU was at its peak. Greece was an exception with its unwavering support to EU, when other member states were in a transitory phase in their relationship with EU which had an element of social dissensus. Therefore, we strive to look into issues that shaped and continue to shape the political engagements between Greece and EU and the way through which is has evolved and will evolve in the future.
Evolving of the Political Relationship between Greece and EU and the way forward for both
Greek’s membership on the EU has seen changing attitudes more so from within its own structure than from outside the country. The atypical position adopted by the Greece towards issues which were common to both EU and Greece convinced many to label Greece as awkward partner. On economic issues, the stand adopted by Greece was extreme to traditional EU system. This created a friction from both sides and from within their own quarters.
Within Greece, with new dimensions and consequences emerging as a result of increased integration, the political discourse now seems to be between the modernizers, who are pro-European, and traditionalists, whose ideology is nationalistic. With divergent views on most political components facing the nation from both sides, inevitably, the nationalistic opinion on EU’s influence of nation’s political discourse is threatening for Greece’s identity.
There were noticeable misalignment of Greek interest with that of EU, with the former taking a stand which was motivated by a need to voice their interest. The end of 80s was a period when systematic deviation on national interest could be observed. For instance, the conflict between Turkey and Greece was a standpoint among many that prevented Greeks from any support to EU-Turkey resolution. In the Cyprus case, the approach by Greece to have Cyprus under the EU’s before the end of the conflict was misaligned with broader US objective. For instance, Greece, when the Republic of Macedonia was being created, threatened to not to recognize it until it changed the name of the country. For instance, in the case of war in Yugoslavia, Greece was constantly reported to be condemning the EU for its anti-Serbian stand. In all these and a number of cases, the attitude of the Greece reflects their discomfort of EU stands on international issues and an opportunity to advance their influence and opinions, which were seldom in common with the larger EU’s stands.[Adamantia Pollis, “Greek national identity: religious minorities, rights and European norms,” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10 (1992): 171–195.] ...