Turkey and Greece Conflict | Causes, Map, Solutions — Datastock.info
Introduction
Turkey and Greece both are neighboring countries. Both countries are neighbors for centuries. Both countries are also members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Even then both countries are considered “rivalries”. They are considered rivalries because there are many conflicts between these two countries. The most important and complex conflict is of the Aegean Sea. The Aegean Sea is located to the west of Turkey and to the east of Greece. This conflict is considered at the core of both countries relations with each other. For Turkey, it is also important because of its impact on the relations with the EU (European Union).
The Aegean Sea dispute has five disagreements between Turkey & Greece i) Over the control of islands and islets present in the Aegean Sea; ii) the military withdrawal from the eastern Greek islands; iii) the width of the territorial sea; iv) delimitation of Continental Shelf; v) the width of national air space in the Greek islands present in the Aegean Sea & the operative control or rights and obligations of the FIR (Flight Information Region). Due to this conflict, both countries reached near the war many times like in 1987, 1996, and recently in 2017.
Both countries had two 2 talks since the origin of this dispute. The first talks were from 1975 to 1981 but this talk did not bear many fruits due to lack of trust between both countries. The second talks were from 2002 to 2003. In 2017, warships of both countries came face to face near the Greek islets. Such incidents show that there must be a solution to this Aegean Sea dispute. Thus, it produces the questions.
Aegean Sea Disputes:
The Aegean Sea is closed off on half sides and consists of almost 2400 islands. It is actually the longest border between Greece & Turkey. Different interlinked controversies started this Aegean Sea conflict between Turkey and Greece. This dispute has become more problematic since the Greek coup in 1974 in Nicosia. In order to unite Cyprus with Greece, as a result, Turkey invaded and thus taken the north of the island. Earlier it was a continental shelf conflict but now it has grown to control the islands, airspace, & militarization of islands.
Continental Shelf:
The delimitation continental shelf according to the Geneva Convention on Continental shelf & UN Law of Sea is:
“The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas. That extends beyond its territorial seas throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines. From which the breadth of the territorial seas is measured. Where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance (UNCLOS, Article 76.1).”
One of the interconnected controversies of the Aegean Sea is the continental shelf. This controversy began when Greece started the exploration of natural resources (mainly oil) in 1973. As a response, Turkey gave licenses for exploring natural reserves to the “State Petroleum Company Turkey” in the Eastern part of the Aegean Sea in regard to the natural extension of the continental shelf. This answer to the Turkish government-produced anger in Greece & thus Greece condemned Turkey’s act straightaway. However, Turkey paid no attention in this regard. The actions of exploring resources by countries show that both were working for their own interests.
Greece Perspective
According to Greece, every island has its own continental shelf. Greece places this argument in the light of the UN convention on the continental shelf in 1958 which is called the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Turkey was not part of this convention. She used this claim to justify its actions. Turkey also claims that these islands are a natural prolongation of its continental shelf. Turkey wanted to solve this dispute through bilateral negotiations instead of solving it through ICJ (International Court of Justice). The UNCLOS also has this point;
“Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law … in order to achieve an equitable solution (UNCLOS, Article 83.1).”
Turkey’s Perspective
According to this attitude of Turkey, this dispute will not be taken to ICJ incongruity with the decision of the Security Council. The reason behind it was to urge both states to start the negotiations. Also, in 1978 ICJ rejected Greece’s claims regarding the continental shelf. Even both Turkey & Greece had an agreement in 1976 called the “Bern Agreement”. According to which both parties should reach a peaceful should solution through bilateral negotiation. But Greece did not follow the protocol of this agreement and began activities like seismic and others for drilling in the disputed region of the Aegean Sea. This act of Greece led to the situation of 1987. When both countries were on the edge of starting a war.
Greece has an advantage according to Article 77 of the U.N Law of Sea which states that the countries having coasts have the right of exploring natural resources like oil & gas by drilling on the continental shelf. These international laws must be obliged by non-signing countries because it somehow shows the custom of the international community. Similarly, in the North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ had a verdict of equidistance rule. This gives a hint that there should be a line that can divide the islands of Greece & mainland Turkey equally.
But Turkey in response to Greece arguments gives 4 jurisdictions of ICJ (International Court of Justice); i) there should be an agreement for the delimitation between both countries; ii) the rule of equity should be followed when dividing the Aegean Sea; iii) there must be a balance in terms of legal & political procedures; iv) must give importance to the natural extension. In terms of these jurisdictions & Turkey’s own perspectives its shows that Turkey’s agenda is comprised of the following points:
1) In Turkey’s point of view, the continental shelf area is beyond 6 miles in Aegean Sea.
2) Turkey is ready to achieve a possible solution through bilateral negotiations.
3) Turkey also keeps on record the Bern Agreement signed between Turkey & Greece to solve this dispute peacefully. This agreement also condemns any unilateral action regarding the Aegean Sea.
Territorial Sea:
Both Turkey & Greece have a dispute on the breadth of their territorial sea. In 1936, Greece extended its occupation to 6 nautical miles in the Aegean Sea. As a response, Turkey also extended its occupation to 6 nautical miles in 1964. But then UNCLOS gave states the right to increase the breadth of their territorial seas up to 12 nautical miles (UNCLOS, Article 3). In 1995, when Greece’s parliament rectified the UNCLOS, the political relations between Turkey & Greece went wrong. After rectification by the Greek parliament, Greece issued a statement that it is ready to increase the breadth of territorial seas up to 12 nautical miles in the Aegean Sea. As a response, Turkey also issued a statement that any unilateral action by Greece in this regard would be a casus belli. However, the right is given by UNCLOS also has its limitation in special circumstances.
UNCLOS Decision:
According to UNCLOS, “Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, not one or the other of the two States is entitled, bombing understanding between them unexpectedly, to broaden its regional oceans. Past the middle line each purpose of which is equidistant from the closest focuses on the baselines from which the expansiveness of the regional oceans of every one of the two States is estimated. The above arrangement doesn’t have any significant bearing. In any case, where it is essential by reason of noteworthy title or other extraordinary conditions to delimit the regional oceans of the two States in a way that is at change therewith (UNCLOS, Article 15)”.
So, UNCLOS gives a clear-cut measure of agreement between the states regarding the breadth of territorial sea in special cases. But UNCLOS does not clarify more about these cases. The islands which are away from the Turkish coast can have territorial seas. This is an important aspect of this dispute. According to UNCLOS, islands can generate territorial seas. UNCLOS states that “…the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to another land territory” (UNCLOS, Article 121.2).” If this advantage is given to Greece then Turkey will face harm in terms of navigational & airspace freedoms.
Turkey’s Stance on UNCLOS Decision:
In Turkey’s perspective, the dispute of breadth of territorial seas should be solved through bilateral negotiations. Turkey wants talks because if Greece increases its breadth to 12nm then it will decrease the control of Turkey on high seas and overflight freedom. UNCLOS also has this point: “The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone (Article 7.6)”. Turkey can enjoy the benefit of “innocent passage” but this passage was not allowed in times of emergency & war. Also, the submarines have to flow on the surface and have to show their flags. These rules are given by UNCLOS in Articles from 17 to 21.
The Air Space:
No state in the world has a right on the international airspace above the high seas. However, the breadth of airspace corresponds to the breadth of territorial seas is in control of that country (Article 1 & 2 of the Chicago Convention on civil aviation 1944). The Chicago Convention states that “…the land areas and territorial seas adjacent thereto under the sovereignty, suzerainty, protection or mandate of such State”. Greece has increased its airspace to 10 nautical miles in 1931, at that time its breadth of territorial seas was 3 nm. Turkey argued against this action after 4 decades in 1974 because it was not aware of Greece’s action in 1931.
From Greece’s perspective, Turkey did not object to this increase in 4 decades from 1931 to 1974. Which gives Greece the upper hand in this dispute. Greece also argues that UNCLOS gives the right of an increase in 12nm in the breadth of territorial seas, and this right also gives Greece approval to increase its airspace up to 10 nautical miles.
In Turkey’s perspective, the action of Greece is illegal because the breadth of territorial seas and airspace should be equal. And Greece has only 6 nautical miles of the breadth of territorial seas in Aegean. This shows that how this maritime conflict between Turkey & Greece has affected other areas as well.
The sovereignty of Certain Islands, Islets, and Rocks in the Aegean Sea:
This problem has its own significance in the Aegean because it has its implications on other disputes. Control over certain islands, islets, or rocks will give the chance to delimit the continental shelf & breadth of territorial seas. Some small islets & rocks are present in the Aegean Sea which ownerships are not cleared by the international treaties because at the time of transfer these small islets were disregarded in the treaties. And due to the different interpretations of treaties by the states, this problem is not solved yet. Another reason for this dispute is the uncleared language used in the treaties.
In the beginning, Greece was on the stance that the Strait Region Islands and the Saruhan islands, and other islands that were present on the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 belonged to it. But now it claimed other islands too which were not mentioned in the treaty. Turkey argued against this and said that Greece’s interpretation of Article 12 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty. Turkey claims that those islands which were not named in the treaty must be given to either party only through bilateral negotiations.
Challenges To Solve This Dispute:
There are 4 basic challenges that both countries face in solving the Aegean Sea disputes. Each challenge reinforces the other.
- 1) Unsolved Cyprus issue causes hindrance in reaching a settlement between both countries in terms of the Aegean Sea.
- 2) Hardliners on both sides try to increase the unrealistic expectations of public sentiments regarding this issue. The politicians on both sides also become prey to this tactic.
- 3) Both countries have weak governments because they have fear of losing important national issue. If there will be a bigger internal cost in reaching a compromise deal then that government will lose public moral support. This fear causes both countries to have a backfoot in solving this issue.
- 4) Both countries also have fear regarding the real aims of each other. This fear can be felt strongly; Greece has fears that Turkey wants to occupy half of the Aegean Sea in terms of sea, airspace, seabed and it even wants to occupy Greek islands located on the eastern side of the Aegean Sea. While Turkey has also its fear against Greece. Turkey claims that Greece wants to change the status of the Aegean Sea into Greek Lake and thus throwing Turkey together out from the Aegean Sea.
- 5) Since the second decade of the 21st century, a new challenge/reason is also faced by these countries in solving this issue. This challenge is a state of play in both countries. Tayyip Erdogan has become more autocratic and rightist and thus changing the status of Turkey from democratic Muslim rule to “illiberal democracy”. This is increasing problems with the neighboring countries. And the neighboring countries which considered Turkey a soft power back in the 2000s now seeing Turkey as a hard power that is trying to become a hegemon in that particular region. Similarly, Greece with right-wing governments or nationalist governments has reached no solution with Turkey regarding the Aegean Sea. Also, the EU (European Union) in today’s time has no effective measures in solving this dispute.
- 6) There are also different difficulties face by both countries;
Challenges and Greece :
- If Greece goes for a settlement through negotiations, it has to limit its territorial sea breadth to 6 nautical miles or limited it at certain points and this will also happen only if Turkey, its rival, accepts it. This solution will deprive it of its legal advantage gain through UNCLOS. This will be very disgraceful for Greece to leave its legal right.
- The airspace of Greece will also shrink to 6 nautical miles which are now 10 nm. Public, media, hardliners will be seen this as the loss of dignity because it will be a clear reduction of the sovereignty of Greece and the Greek government does not want this.
- Greek hardliners conditioned the government, public, and media in case continental shelf that islands do not consider a special circumstance. Backstepping from this will cause them backlash from the people of their own country.
- The Aegean Sea can be split into the ratio of 65–35% or 75–25% in a jurisdiction that would be beyond the breadth of the territorial sea. Most Greek consider that all Aegean Sea is a part of Greece due to its links with Byzantine Empire and thus splitting the Aegean Sea in any ratio would be not acceptable.
Challenges and Turkey:
- If Turkey goes for a settlement, then in terms of the territorial sea, Turkey has to accept the partial increase in breadth of the Greek territorial sea. This would be tough to accept because Turkey has been against it since 1974.
- Similarly, Turkey will have to accept that islands also have a continental shelf which will be against its initial stance.
- Also, in case of any settlement, Turkey will have put aside the concept of “grey zone” which would be difficult to swallow.
Procedural Difficulties:
The solution to the continental shelf issue would be through either negotiations or jurisdiction. This causes a procedural difficulty in solving the Aegean Sea dispute. From Greece’s point of view, this issue can only be solved through ICJ (International Court of Justice) and it also claims that the continental shelf is the only dispute in the Aegean Sea. While Turkey is of the view that the problem should solve only through negotiations and it also denies Greece’s approach to one problem and one solution.
Many experts in Greece have the view that table talk with Turkey will only harm Greece and Turkey’s consistent stance on negotiation increase its belief. While Turkey thinks that Greek will use its international connections if the case would go to ICJ and UNCLOS (Turkey sees this as unjust in some parts & that’s why it has not signed it yet) also gives Greece an upper hand in this regard.
Suggestions | What should be done?
The first method is the settlement of the Cyprus dispute. It should be the number one priority in solving Aegean Sea disputes. This method has gained more popularity in Greece than in Turkey. Till the era of Bulent Ecevit (2002), Turkey was on the stance that Cyprus was settled the issue by de facto in 1974. Then after the victory of the Justice & Development Party in Turkey, this stance has changed. This method has no issue but it is somehow not realistic if we think of the frustration both countries have faced in past in solving this issue.
As a matter of fact, disregard of the 1950s, the Cyprus issue is not mainly an issue between Turkey & Greece but an ethnic issue between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The talks started in 2015 to 2017 is a big breakthrough in solving this issue. If this issue will solve in near future then this will give a chance of just settlement in the Aegean Sea dispute.
The second method is of economic cooperation, increasing tourism. The 8 thPresident of Turkey Turgut Özal was the first politician at the leadership level who gave and support the idea of economic cooperation between Turkey & Greece. Similarly, in Greece the president Andreas Papandreou was of the same views. Economic cooperation would enhance the trust between both parties and thus the fear regarding the aims of each other in the Aegean Sea dispute would disappear. This method has its limits in the eyes of critics. They think that this is too optimistic a method. They argue that this cooperation would be finished if there is any trigger situation arises in the Aegean Sea and if a nationalist right-wing government comes to power.
The third method is to solve this Aegean Sea dispute by accepting the quasi-common grounds reached in the 1970s and 2000s talks.
Conclusion
The Aegean Sea dispute is a complex dispute. Both parties have their tangible interests in this issue. The main reason that why have both countries not reached a possible solution is the lack of trust between both parties. The lack of trust is so strong that even the two rounds of talks could not break it. The governments of both countries should put aside the hardliners’ thoughts and pressure and focus on a peaceful solution to this dispute.
Originally published at https://datastock.info on February 12, 2021.
