Greece – Turkey: to restore relations? – News – news
The new geopolitical reality created by the war in Ukraine and the political rupture in Western-Russian relations opens a new positive perspective for Greek-Turkish relations. And this was confirmed at the meeting / lunch of Prime Minister K. Mitsotakis with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul. The leaders recorded two important convergences, without, of course, abandoning their fixed ones, at least at this stage. Two more specific factors seem to contribute to the new positive outlook:
First, the emerging awareness / lesson that war can not be an option for tackling problems between two countries. The country is accepting an aggressive war that is doing its patriotic duty and will react at all costs, but that does not mean that the war is not an untold tragedy that ultimately does not solve any problem. Accumulates news. The peaceful settlement of disputes, either through negotiation or international justice, is the only mutually beneficial option.
Second, the restoration of the West as a whole requires the normalization of any of its internal opposites that undermine its coherence and effectiveness. Allies should behave like allies. And it is important that Mitsotakis and Erdogan spoke in this language, as the Greek Prime Minister said. And the unity of the West “demands” from Turkey the full, total reintegration into its institutions (eg NATO), even with some margins of autonomy of choices and behavior (for a regional role, etc.). The same logic applies to the Union-Turkey relationship.
However, the question is after the first positive step that was taken, will the Greek-Turkish relations in the long run be able to be fully restored at a cooperative level with the solution of the problems. The answer is that they can and should be restored, no matter how difficult. The maximum depends on Turkey and its outrageous positions on specific issues. But that’s what history says.
“Our relations with Turkey are relations between two countries connected by close and sincere friendship. Nothing separates us anymore. The settlements of the pending and credit obligations of five centuries have been permanently closed “. This was the situation in Greek-Turkish relations 86 years ago, in 1936, at least according to what the distinguished journalist of the time KP Tsimbidaros wrote (see “Iros Tragodias”, July 29, 1936, article in “NEA”. in the volume “1922, How We Lost Smyrna”). Today, 86 years later, we think we are back to around 1830! At one reading, Turkey attempted to revise the Treaty of Lausanne and the Aegean regime “as a first step towards recovery” (I. K. Pretenteris “Fire in the Aegean”, “The Step”, February 20, 2022). The “settlements of all pending issues” that in 1936 we believed were permanently closed, reopened. The responsibility and the curse, of course, belongs to Turkey, which from a peaceful force then became expansive, revisionist, neo-imperial with dogmas such as the “Blue Homeland”, “gray zones”, etc.
But our side also bears a share of responsibility for the collapse of Greek-Turkish relations. “National the true” that the national poet says (D. Solomos). And the truth is that in at least four areas mistakes or omissions were made or designed impulsively that immediately or indirectly “helped” the internal expansionary dynamics in Turkey. Particularly:
First, the Cyprus issue. The way we handled this major issue (Athens and Nicosia) is at the beginning (1954) of the collapse of Greek-Turkish relations. The end of the Greek-Turkish friendship established by El. Venizelos, K. Ataturk, I. Inonou. This is pointed out, among others, by three leading Greek diplomats who dealt with the Cyprus issue in various phases: M. Alexandrakis, V. Theodoropoulos, E. Lagakos in their book “The Cyprus 1950-1974, An Endoscopy” (Athens, Hellenic European Publishing 1987). And unfortunately the Cyprus issue remains unresolved and adds to the impasse in Greek-Turkish relations.
Second, Maximalism. In the face of outrageous Turkish positions and many demands, Greece has promoted and continues to promote positions based on many in international law and the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS-1982). However, he did not avoid “zero agan”, some maximizations, ie in positions and arguments, mainly in terms of reading UNCLOS (eg area of territorial waters, influence of some small islands, etc.). In combination with the position for a single Turkish difference, maximalism prevents the achievement of solutions while it also fuels Turkish expansion.
Third, Exclusion – encirclement. In combination with the above, in the last decade we have pursued a policy in the Eastern Mediterranean centered on the tripartite partnerships, the EastMed pipeline, the demonstration of the unification of the continental shelf / EEZ Greece – Cyprus, etc. This policy (although without offering anything solid and substantial for Greece) was interpreted (or misinterpreted) by Ankara as a plan to exclude it from the Mediterranean and surrounded it by “enemy forces”. In other words, it fed the (paranoid) Turkish syndrome of phobia, insecurity, dissolution (Sevres Syndrome) from which it suffers. Turkey reacted in various ways (illegal Turkish-Libyan demarcation memorandum, etc.) and of course the “Blue Homeland” theorems, etc. Of course, the situation in the East The Mediterranean has changed recently, but perceptions remain.
Fourth, Omissions. There have been omissions on the part of Greece and Cyprus to resolve problems in relations with Turkey, under the erroneous assessment that time is working in our favor. So we lost big. In the Cyprus issue at least twice, 2004 (rejection of the Annan Plan) and 2017 (Crans Montana negotiations). In Greek-Turkish in 2004 based on the regulations of the Helsinki Council (1999) when our fear of referring some issues to the International Court of Justice led us to abandon “Helsinki” altogether. major mistake. The failure to resolve the problems has burdened the agenda on the part of Turkey to our detriment.
And of course, together with the above, we did not always use, Greece and Cyprus, ingeniously our role in the European Union to solve the problems with Turkey. And at the moment we are in a different regional and geopolitical environment that, if nothing else, requires a paradigm shift in Greek-Turkish on our part.
The above does not in any way minimize the ancestral responsibilities of Turkey. But the important thing is that they opened a new positive perspective…
Professor PK Ioakeimidis is a former ambassador – advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Advisory Committee of ELIAMEP. Last of the book: “Achievements and Strategic Mistakes of the Foreign Policy of the Post-Revolution” (Foundation).