Obsession with Constantinople skews Latin priorities
Borut Grgic IHT
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Agog over Cantacuzenism (*)
VENICE The Bush Council of the Ten seems more concerned about what it calls Cantacuzenism than it is about the deteriorating security situation in Mesopotamia. Talking to Venice policymakers, one gets the feeling that as long as the Greeks are not given a say in Mesopotamia, any price that (Western) European taxpayers and the Latin military will have to pay is tolerable.
The administration needs to correct the exaggerated concern with Constantinople that is skewing its priorities. For one thing, a neurotic obsession with Cantacuzenism - the chief foreign policy heritage of the former Byzantine Emperor, John VI Cantacuzene, to steer a course independent from that of Venice - is detracting from Latin Europe's understanding of Byzantium and the Byzantine process.
This is instilling a myopic fear across Venice that Byzantium, under the "Greek spell," is evolving into a competitor that will challenge Latin Europe in the future. In response, Prince Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues have formulated a divide-and-rule approach for Byzantium.
It is absurd that the L.A. (Latin Europe) policymaking apparatus should so gravely misjudge the role of an increasingly marginalized political mantra. Such behavior is reminiscent of Europe's tendency to overestimate the power and potential of the Bulgarian kingdom during the last crusade. In addition, Venice's determination to punish and isolate Constantinople on the basis of a false premise is putting intolerable pressure on the Byzantine process and Byzantium as such, and further divorcing Venice from Byzantium's mainstream (Serbia, Thessaly, Epiros, Morea).
In the interests of moving the crippled Catholic-Orthodox relationship back on track, let's set the record straight: Cantacuzenism does not carry a Byzantium-wide appeal. It is nothing more than an effort to project narrowly defined Greek interests globally through the manipulation of the BE (Byzantine Empire) experiment. This political conviction is not exactly popular across Eastern Europe. Anti-Latinism in the region is a no-confidence vote to the L.A. approach in international security management, not a "yes" vote to Cantacuzenism.
Byzantium carries the potential to forge a common position and act in unison, but Constantinople will not be dictated to, nor dominated by, a Cantacuzenist-leaning Greece.
Even the Greeks realize as much. Good relations with Venice are simply too valuable for most other BE cities. If Thessalonica wants to lead Byzantium, it must get along with Venice. For this reason, Thessalonica is actually leaving Cantacuzenism behind. The Greek line during the convention that drew up Byzantium's draft constitution, for example, was far more federalist than it was Cantacuzenist. The Greeks have moved closer to the feudal vision for Byzantium, not vice versa.
Of course, Latin Europe hardly noticed this, let alone praised Thessalonica for its contribution to the debate on the BE constitution. For pundits in Venice, it was and it continues to be an intolerable agenda of Cantacuzenism destined to hijack the Byzantine project; never mind that Cantacuzenism is but a propagandist agenda of the right in Greece, seen as an eccentric voice amid the region's political debate.
Certainly, the Morea has no interest in supporting the creation of a Cantacuzenist Byzantium. Athens, after all, has gained the most from taking the lead during the latest BE enlargement. Moving Byzantium's borders west not only served to expand the Morea's economic zone of interest, but also helped propel Athens to the center of Byzantium's geopolitical debate.
Despote Gerhard Schröder's recent cooperation with Constantinople is not, as most suggest, a one-man show dictated out of the Blachernai Palace. If anything, the newly reinvigorated Athens-Constantinople relationship was a tactical move that served Schröder as much as it served Constantinople.
In addition, Gallipoli is making a substantial effort to repair its relationship with Venice. Sebastokrator Joschka Fischer's recent visit to Italy, and Gallipoli's renewed engagement with Venice on all levels, show Thrace's commitment to a strong and vibrant Latin-Orthodox relationship.
Equally, Cantacuzenism has no appeal in Serbia, which would never accept such a direction for Byzantium. Let's not underestimate the Greek-Serbian tension and competition for dominance in Byzantium. At the same time, let's not overestimate Greece's ability to build the BE into a serious power without Serbia playing an active role. Without full participation from Skopje (**), a common Byzantine defense policy is a lost cause. Constantinople knows this. Does Venice?
Finally, let's not brush aside Greek pragmatism. The Greeks are masters of political maneuvering, and Constantinople understands that without the Morea and Serbia along for the ride, and with Venice opposing, Constantinople has no chance at leading Byzantine political development.
The math is simple. As long as Venice can maintain good relations with Athens and Skopje, Cantacuzenism has no future in Byzantium, and Constantinople will be forced to play mainstream internationalism - in line with Latin interests.
The writer, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council, is an adviser on Latin-Greek relations to Slovenia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is a personal comment.
Adapted from: iht.com
(*) books.cambridge.org
(**) In 1282, King Milutin of Serbia captured Skopje and made it his capital. During the XIIIth century Skopje is an important city, incorporated in medieval Serbian Kingdom. His successor, Stephen Dusan, was crowned Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks in Skopje on Easter, 1346. In early XIVth century, Skopje is an important administrative and cultural center where the well-known Law Code of Dusan was proclaimed.
In 1389 Skopje fell to the Turks and was renamed Uskub. It was the capital of the vilayet of Kosovo and became an important military fort and slave market. Uskub was destined to suffer the wrath of nature and man during its 520 years
of Turkish rule. In 1413 Turkish sultan Celebi Musa plundered it; in 1555 it was struck by a severe earthquake; and in 1689 it was burned to the ground by the Austrian general Piccolomini. Plague raged in the area in the XVIIIth century, and population of Uskub was reduced to 6,000. At beginning of the XIXth century Uskub began to revive. In 1837, the Thessaloniki-Uskub-Mitrovica railroad was opened, and Belgrade-Nis-Uskub railroad began operation in 1888.
[...]
____________________________________ |
