How Nato can help the Greeks

Nato should assist Greece in reducing its military expenditure by guaranteeing its security.

Fifty years ago, the United States and United Kingdom, were so worried about economic and political stability in the eastern Mediterranean they gave massive loans to both Greece and Turkey to strengthen the capital base in both nations. In 1963, America withdrew its anti-Soviet missiles in Turkey and the fledgling European Economic Community offered a future accession partnership to the Turks to anchor the nation firmly within the orbit of western democracy.

In 2012, Europe needs to offer financial help to the Greeks but Washington and Nato can play a part in reducing the Greeks’ paraonoia – oh no not another Greek word! – about their national security. In addition to the well-reported problems of corruption, clientalism and tax cheating Greece faces other difficulties which no other EU member state shares.

The single biggest part of the Greek economy is the shipping industry – representing about seven per cent of the Greek economy. In Britain, the minuscule shipping industry pays 780 million pounds in tax to HMRC. Greek shipping oligarchs pay no tax. The British authorities could help by sending details of Greek oligarchs who have recently purchased Mayfair mansions to get their Euros out of Greece, to the Athens tax authorities.

The biggest land and property owner in Greece is the Orthodox church. It pays no tax and its priests and monks also live tax-free. It is time for the Greek religious community to render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar’s and pay their dime in tax dues.

The other barely known aspect of Greek public spending is the disproportionate amount spent on importing arms from Germany, France and the US. Greece spend 50 per cent more, as a share of its GDP, on arms than Britain, France or Turkey. The reason is the fear that one day there will be conflict with Turkey. Greeks remember, with cause, the Turkish intervention in Cyprus in 1974 when an initial arrival of Turkish soldiers to prevent Greek-Cypriot fascist sympathisants from initiating anti-Turk Srebrenicas turned into a full-scale invasion and annexation of the northern third of the island.

Turkish airplanes regularly over-fly Greek islands and with the lure of under-sea energy sources there is tension enough in the region to justify, in Greek eyes, a very high level of military expenditure. So Washington and Nato should now give Greece an unqualified security guarantee that any assault of Greek territorial integrity will be met with full Nato defence capability.

Paris and Berlin should tell their arms merchants to roll over payment for Greek defence orders. It is not fully understood that most of the EU money going to Greece arrives in Athens and leaves five minutes later for French and German banks to pay off debt. Only about six billion euros has stayed in Greece. Athens should not be required to send billions to northern European arms manufacturers untll the economic story there has calmed down.

Greece also can help with its own regional security. When the Turkish Cypriots voted to accept the UN brokered deal for a settlement for the divided island, Greek Cypriots under the benevolent eye of Athens were whipped up to vote it down. An historic opportunity was lost. Greece could not press for a new settlement on Cyprus based on the Annan plan.

Greece could also help stabilize its northern neighbours in the western Balkans by easing its Swiftian rejection of the right of Macedonia to call itself Macedonia and by rejecting the Moscow led campaign to deny recognition to Kosovo. Nearly 100 nations, including all the major democracies now have diplomatic and trade relations with Kosovo and the fiction that the nation will one day revert to rule by Serbia is just that – a myth that Athens should not encourage.

The reporting on Greece has almost entirely focused on economic, fiscal and Eurozone aspects of the crisis. But security and diplomatic tools can also be used to help bring stability to Greece and the region. For British Europhobes who have invested all their belief in willing the collapse of the single currency, saving Greece is now to be devoutly not wished for.  But wider regional, European and even Atlantic considerations should not want Greece to collapse into the kind of chaos that led to the 1967 military intervention or worse.

Helping the Greeks by saying they can reduce arms spending to Turkish or British level while at the same time getting oligarchs and the orthodox church to pay taxes would be part of the process of helping Greece back onto its feet.

US President Barack Obama meets with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Photograph: Getty Images.
Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and was a minister at Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA