The Logic of Papandreou's Foreign Policy

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Critical responses to the nationalist programme of Andreas Papandreou have ranged from suspicion to alarm. Dubbing him 'populist,' 'erratic,' 'pro-Soviet,' and 'antiAmerican,' critics have predicted that Greece's socialist premier would withdraw his country from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (nato), sever its link with the European Community (ec), eject United States bases from its soil, and commit a number of other related 'sins'. Roy Macridis, for example, has set out a series of sombre predictions based on Papandreou's ideological profile and the radical platform of his party; while John Loulis has argued that Papandreou's strategy has exhibited 'inconsistent and perplexing shifts,' although remaining essentially within a framework of 'antiAmerican' sentiments and 'pro-Soviet' inclinations.1 Clearly, if these dire forecasts were to come true, the consequences would be profound: the disintegration of nato's southern flank, increased opportunities for the Soviet Union to isolate Turkey, and the transformation of the Balkans into the powder keg it used to be. That none of these predictions has come to be suggests that they may have been founded on fallacies. Indeed, I will argue that Papandreou's critics have oversimplified, and hence distorted, his world view. Moreover, in personalizing their charges,