ABSTRACT
Introduction Greece is a successor state of the Ottoman Empire with a predominantly Christian Orthodox population, a member of the Western bloc in the Cold War, and a full member of all European political institutions. The country has intimate historical, political and cultural links with three regions: Western Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East. Since independence in 1830, a combination of Ottoman political traditions and Enlightenment ideas has formed the key framework for state-religion relations. Greece is an exception in the context of the secularisation process which has characterised much of Western Europe in recent years. In Greece, many people do not accept that ‘modernisation’ inevitably means a reduction or denial of a significant political role for the Orthodox Church. Under these circumstances, what is widely agreed to be a growing political role for religion since the end of the Cold War in many parts of the world implies in Greece even greater influence for certain religious actors. This claim is made not only in relation to domestic issues but also in relation to the country’s foreign policy, especially in relation to Turkey. Over the years, Greek-Turkish relations have been burdened by long-lasting political problems, including territorial disputes, such as Cyprus and the Aegean, and sovereignty disputes involving minority peoples. Because of historical factors, which led to the formation of the Greek nation-state and the emergence of the Autocephalous Church of Greece, two religious institutions vie for influence among Orthodox Greeks. These two – the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece – have long competed against each other, with a significant influence on Greek-Turkish relations. Over time, however, their positions have become increasingly bifurcated, especially in the context of the post-1999 rapprochement efforts between the two countries. While the Church of Greece, under the leadership of Archbishop Christodoulos, generally took a position which did not obviously contribute to peaceful resolution of GreekTurkish disputes and arguably helped embed further existing prejudices, the Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarchate, led by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, followed a distinctively different line. Although the church was
itself a victim of Turkish anti-minority policies, it nevertheless actively promoted Greek-Turkish cooperation, including peaceful resolution of existing disputes. As a result, it managed to earn the respect of both international political and religious leaders (Williams 2008). The contention of this chapter is that the church was able to do this through the ability of its leader to wield, what Joseph Nye calls ‘soft power’. In this chapter, following Nye, soft power is regarded as:
the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is enhanced.
