Published by the ASSOCIATION OF EDITORS OF DAILY NEWSPAPERS OF ATHENS
ΑΔΗΩΤΟΣ
Territorial Regime
The territorial regime of the Aegean was established 60 years ago with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne by Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Romania, the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes, Greece, and Turkey. After World War II it changed only in terms of Dodecanese sovereignty. These islands were assigned to Greece with the peace treaty with Italy signed in Paris in 1947.
In Lausanne, our country had come as a loser. It had suffered the military disaster of 1922. Thus the treaty signed there represented the maximum of Turkey’s demands and the minimum of Greece’s rights, which renounced all the gains of the Sevres agreement. However, Greece has always respected the territorial regime that resulted from the Treaty of Lausanne, despite the fact that it left out of its borders areas that ethnologically and historically belonged to it. Greece never projected views against Turkey. It never threatened its territorial integrity. It never gave Turkey any trouble.
But Turkey for 50 whole years did not raise the issue of changing it. It had accepted it without objection. Certainly, during this period there was no shortage of problems and conflicts – sometimes very serious – in its relations with our country, just as there was no shortage of happy moments and periods of normality and cooperation. However, Turkey did not project visions at the expense of the Greek area. It did not challenge the sovereign rights to the Greek islands, sea or air. Even when they proposed, in 1941, to the Germans to occupy the Greek islands of the eastern Aegean, it took pains to hide that he had expansionist plans. Turkey presented as an excuse, that it just wanted to… protect them. So that the English will not occupy them!
But from 1973 Turkey’s attitude changed radically. For the first time, it officially and openly manifested expansionist tendencies at the expense of the Greek area. It created issues about the Greek arid islands, the Aegean continental shelf, the airspace and the littoral zone.
And they proceeded with successive provocations that created great tension in our relations and threatened security and peace in our region many times.
The most serious of these hostile actions was the invasion of Cyprus in July 1974 and the occupation of 40 percent of its territory. And yes, Cyprus is not part of the Greek territory. It is an independent state. It is, however, part of Hellenism. And the predatory policy followed by Turkey, towards it, is indicative of its moods and orientations.
But let’s examine one by one the issues that led to the so-called «Aegean crisis«. A crisis that for ten years has depressingly cast a shadow over the horizon of Greek-Turkish relations and threatens to ignite the fire of war in the highly flammable and strategically critical region we live in, with unknown consequences.
Bolt from the blue
For 50 whole years, Turkey had not shown any symptoms of suffocation, it started suddenly, after 1973 it complains that it is being «suffocated» by the Aegean regime. Which is unfair because it limits it to a narrow strip of sea. And that our country is trying to turn the Aegean Sea into a Greek lake.
It wasn’t limited to just protests. She began to question the Greekness of the Aegean and to claim that half of it belongs to her along with the islands near her shores. After all, it never says «Greek islands«. He always says «the islands of the Aegean«, as if they are strays.
Here are excerpts from statements made by Turkish political leaders from time to time, indicative of their perceptions and intentions:
«Turkey will never allow the Aegean to become a Greek sea, nor will it allow others to usurp any Turkish rights in this area.»
MINISTER OF DEFENSE HASAN ISIK, 1.6.1974
«The future of Turkey is the sea. Turkey is charged with becoming a Mediterranean nation. All politicians have accepted this line for the future of Turkey«
MINISTER OF DEFENSE IL. SANCHAR, 10.1.1974
«Neither the Government nor the Turkish public opinion can accept that the Aegean belongs exclusively to Greece. Half of the Aegean belongs exclusively to Turkey and the other half belongs to Greece. This has always been the official view.«
FOREIGN MINISTER TSAGLANGIL, 4.4.1975
«The entire nation is dependent on Greek pressure, which is trying to strangle the country, encircling Turkey from the West and blocking its outlet to the Mediterranean Sea.
MINISTER OF DEFENSE HASSAN ISIK, 23.2.1978
The Turkish nation must unite to face the problem of the Aegean and the Greek pressure that will encircle Western Turkey and aims to strangle it.«
«Don’t call these islands Greek islands, but Aegean islands. It is better to call them islands of the Aegean«.
PRIME MINISTER S. DEMIREL 19.8.1976
“Look at the map! Does the Aegean look like a Greek lake? After all, the lessons of history reinforce the lessons of geography; until recent years, the Aegean islands always belonged to whoever owned Anatolia. Then there is common sense. And in this case, it is enough to look at the map: Many Greek islands are less than 12 miles from the Turkish coast. According to International Law, Greek sovereignty would extend to the shores of Turkey! And the Turks should get a passport to go and bathe!«
PRIME MINISTER S. DEMIREL, 5.6.1975
“The demographic factor should not be ignored either. The population of the thousands of Aegean islands does not exceed 300,000 inhabitants, while the population of the coastal region of Turkey reaches ten million«.
FOREIGN MINISTER TSAGLANGIL, 29.9.76
«For 600 years, the Aegean islands were ours and were in the hands of the Ottomans…«
PRIME MINISTER S. DEMIREL, 24.8.76
«In the Aegean we must necessarily follow a dynamic policy. The conditions today are different from the conditions of 1923. The power of Turkey has grown. When we talk about the need for a dynamic policy, we do not mean that the army must act immediately and that we must occupy the islands. Our economic interests must be secured in the Aegean Cyprus is the first step towards the Aegean«.
FOREIGN MINISTER MELIH JEZEBEL, 22.1.75
«The Aegean sea belongs to us. This is something everyone should understand. We have no intention of innovating on matters of foreign policy. If the honor and interests of the Turkish nation are threatened, we will crush the enemy’s head.«
PRIME MINISTER S. IRMAK, 18.1.75
Many other similar statements could be cited. However, the above is enough to form a clear understanding of the moods of the Turkish leadership.
Share what?
A first observation that could be made is that Ankara misplaces the issue, ‘It presents the Aegean as an area that can be divided between Greece and Turkey or belong to one of the two. But no one can share something that does not belong to him. And the Aegean does not belong to anyone. Neither to Greece nor to Turkey. Beyond the territorial waters of coastal countries, it is a free sea, governed by the international regime of the high seas. International navigation is free in it. And certainly, none of the countries that use it would tolerate being closed like Greece or Turkey or both together, they would protest and react. But no protest and no reaction came from anywhere, this fact shows that the international regime of the open sea that applies in the Aegean remains inviolable.
The Turkish claim that Greece has turned or is attempting to turn the Aegean Sea into its own lake is baseless.
But since we cannot divide the Aegean, what is it that Turkey is asking us to divide? There is nothing left but our sovereign rights. And these are exactly what Turkey is questioning and plotting. But because it understands very well that it cannot promote visions at the expense of our sovereign rights, it cultivates a deliberate confusion by speaking generally and vaguely about the Aegean. It gives us intentions that we never had and never have. It accuses us of usurping rights that do not belong to us. And it appears «wronged» and «strangled» by Greek… greed.
So, before anything else, a brief review of the history of the region is necessary, to see who is wronging whom. Who has expansionist intentions and who represents a threat to security and peace in the Aegean.
a) The shingle zone with the current width of 6 nautical miles,
b) The maritime median line which defines the limits of the continental shelf of Greece and Turkey as derived from International Law (1958 Geneva Convention, 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea)
c) The control limits of the Aegean airspace as defined and shown on the official ICAO maps, which almost coincide with the median line.
The Greekness of the islands
The Aegean is the cradle of Hellenism. After all, the two concepts are considered identical. Historical finds certify that the cultural processes that led to the formation of Greek civilization began in the Aegean from the Neolithic era (7,000 – 6,000 BC). They intensified during the Early Bronze Age (3,200 – 2,000 BC) and culminated with the development of the Minoan civilization, which spread widely in the Aegean, reached mainland Greece and contributed to the flourishing of the Mycenaean civilization (1,600 BC and later ).
The Greeks appear in the Aegean with clear ethnological characteristics from 2,000 BC. The western side of the sea and the Cyclades are inhabited by the Proto-Greeks. They gradually show elements of the Cycladic and Cretan civilizations and assimilate parts of the pre-Hellenic peoples. Around 1,600 BC they adopt entire aspects of Minoan culture. From these national mixtures and political influences arose the Greek nation and its first civilization, the Mycenaean.
In the centuries that followed and up to the beginning of the classical era (500 BC), the Greeks, and especially the Aegean Greeks, spread to every corner of the sea. They colonize the Dodecanese, Halkidiki, Thrace, the Propontis, and the coasts of Asia Minor and reach as far as the Black Sea and Scythia. And with the floating means at their disposal and their daring courage, they are pushed toward Syria, Cilicia, and Italy.
The entire Aegean, but also every area around the Aegean that was inhabited by Greeks has not ceased to have a Greek population until today, with the exception of the Asia Minor coast, from where the Greeks were expelled by the Turks in 1922. And although the Aegean received many raids and was ruled by foreigners and for a longer time by the Turks, it remained ethnically and culturally entirely Greek.
1700’S MAP OF GREECE, G. Delisle This beautiful, but not very accurate, map of Greece, drawn by G. Delisle, covers the entire archipelago and includes Cyprus. It first appeared around 1700 in two world atlases, published by Delisle himself, who was a member of the Academy of Sciences and the first geographer to King Louis XIV of France
The cultural offer
If the Aegean were to be partitioned, as Ankara claims, Greek islands such as Samothraki, Lemnos, Lesbos Chios, Samos, Ikaria, and the Dodecanese would belong to Turkey — apart from Imbros and Tenedos, which were granted to it by the Treaty of Lausanne. But each of these islands has ruins of ancient Greek cities, ports, aqueducts, temples as well as monuments that testify to their glorious Greek past. And our people have contributed to the shaping of modern civilization to an extent that inspires admiration and awe. The greatest physician of antiquity, Hippocrates, whose theories were considered axioms for centuries and to this day doctors still take his wonderful oath, was from Kos, where he founded his Asclepius. The founder of mathematics, Pythagoras, was a Samian. The great ancient astronomer Aristarchus was a Samian.
Homer, according to one version, was Chios.
But lyrical poetry also owes a lot to the Aegean islands. Sappho and Alcaeus were Lesbians and Anacreon lived in Samos. In the field of philosophy, the Lesbians Pittakos and Theofoasters and the Rhodian Panaitios remained famous. In the field of Art, the contribution of the islands has been impressive. For example, let us mention the famous school of Rhodes, which left works such as the Colossus of Rhodes and the Laocoon. But also in rhetoric, their contribution was great. An example is the rhetorical school of Rhodes with its outstanding representatives Athenodorus and Apollonius.
Turkish rule
The Turks appeared in the region very late. Only in the 11th century AD., their first expeditions against the Aegean islands are marked. But these excursions still had the character of pirate raids. They were not conquests aimed at expansion. This situation lasted for over three centuries. Eventually, they managed to become masters of the islands after the fall of Constantinople and the occupation of mainland Greece, between 1456 and 1669, with the exception of Tinos, which was captured in 1715. But they were never able to completely subjugate them. Their rule was limited. And their effect on the development of the islands has generally been negative. They sucked them up without offering them anything. And they acted as a brake on their progress.
Nevertheless, such was the dynamism of the Greek island population that even under the Ottoman yoke, it found many ways not only to survive but also to develop steadily. And in 1821 it had reached such a height that it was able to contribute substantially to the Nation’s Independence Struggle.
Therefore, the Turks never managed to acquire title to the islands, historically, ethnologically, or culturally. They came and went like conquerors. That is why neither their inhabitants were able to assimilate nor alter the ethnological characteristics of the islands.
However, the islands of the eastern Aegean, despite their undeniable Greekness and their struggles, were not liberated as soon as mainland Greece regained its independence. They had to continue their struggles. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 had to be fought. It was necessary for Greece to take part in the First World War on the side of the Entente, in order for the Aegean Archipelago to be definitively included as an island complex in Greek territory. Never before have solid and pure ethnic and cultural populations paid with so much struggle and with so much blood for their right to live free.
The Treaty of Lausanne
Finally, the islands of the eastern Aegean were awarded to Greece with the Treaty of Lausanne of July 24,1923!. But again, the Dodecanese was ceded to Italy, which had occupied it during its war with Turkey in 1911. And Imbros and Tenedos, two islands also with a Greek population, were given to Turkey because they were at the mouth of the Hellespont and considered necessary for the security of the Straits.
«The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereigntyof Italy which form the subject of Article 15.
Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty.«
TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE, JULY 24, 1923. FROM: THE TREATIES OF PEACE 1919-1923, VOL. II (NEW YORK: CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, 1924.)
And article 15 said:
«Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.«
The Dodecanese was assigned to Greece after World War II, as a result of its victory against Italy and its participation in the allied struggle against the Axis. According to Article 14 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of February 10, 1947:
«Italy cedes full sovereignty to Greece. the islands of the Dodecanese…«
N. Vissher was one of the most famous Dutch cartographers. This fine map of Greece and its archipelago, drawn by him, was used in many Dutch atlases which appeared in several editions between 1682 and 1716
ALL OF GREECE
This map of Greece and its surrounding archipelago was included in «Theairum Orbis Terrarum» — the first world atlas, designed by the famous cartographer and geographer Abraham Ortelius and first published in Antwerp in 1570. It appeared in many later editions, with additional maps, and in many other languages, and continued to be published throughout the 17th century.
The importance of the islands for Greece
The Aegean is a vital part of Greek space. It is of great economic importance to Greece. And it is a strong magnet for its tourism. The population of the islands is 1,500,000 and not 300,000 as claimed by the Turks. It is a significant part of the total population of 11,000,000. And their area covers one-fifth (1/5) of the Greek territory.
The total length of the Greek coast is 15,020.8 kilometers. The coastline of the Aegean is 10,942.8 kilometers. That is, 72.8% of the total.
The total of goods unloaded in 1981 in Greek ports represented 48,555,139 tons. Of these, 38,466,952 tons were unloaded in Aegean ports. That is 79.2 percent of the total. The total of goods loaded in ports was 40,211,380 tons. The goods loaded in Aegean ports represented 31,185,788 tons. That is, 77.6% of the total.
The importance of the Aegean islands in the field of tourism results from the fact that each year they attract approximately 40% percent of the foreigners who visit Greece.
However, apart from these indicative figures for the economic vitality of the Aegean, the islands of the region (2,463 of the country’s 3,100 islands), are an important source of wealth for Greece, with their fishing, agriculture, and folk art, which has always flourished in our island populations.
Novel Theories
Turks understand, of course, that questioning the Greekness of the Aegean is a very fragile basis for establishing their territorial claims in the region. That is why they make sure to reinforce it with other arguments that they believe can influence the general public opinion. Almost everything is contained in the statements of Turkish leaders, which we quoted at the beginning of this post. In summary, they are the following:
- Greece cannot be spread across the entire Aegean and Turkey be «squeezed» into a narrow strip of sea, only three miles wide from its shores.
- It is unfair that Greece has approximately 3,000 islands of the Aegean and Turkey only has two (Imbros – Tenedos).
- Since the Aegean is located between two peninsulas, the Greek and the Turkish, it must be divided in half and one part should be given to Greece and the other to Turkey.
- The islands that are close to Turkey and far from Greece must be given to Turkey.
- Because the total population of the islands is much smaller than the population of the coastal regions of Turkey, a demographic problem is created that cannot be ignored.
These are novel theories, devoid of any seriousness or legal basis. And if they were adopted internationally, they would lead to outrageous situations. Countries that have islands should share them with others that don’t or donate some to them for reasons of…» justice». Countries that possess much sea should share it with others that have little or no sea. And those that have a larger population than their other neighbors would have to subtract from their last few lands in order to decongest.
A few examples:
- The archipelago of the Channel Islands is only 20 kilometers from France and 85 from England. It should therefore belong to France and not to England. Specifically, Jersey which is 14 miles from the Cherbourg peninsula.
- Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is located on an island at the narrowest point of the channel at Elsinore, only 3 miles from Sweden. The same island is distant from the Danish peninsula of Jutland, at its nearest point 30 miles. So, the island, together with the Danish capital, should, according to Turkish logic, belong to… Sweden.
- The Danish island of Bornholm is 22 miles from Sweden, 60 miles from Germany, 95 miles from the nearest point of Zealand, where Copenhagen is located, and 215 miles from the Danish peninsula of Jutland. But it belongs to Denmark. And since, of course, neither the Germans nor the Swedes have the minds of the Turks, they never thought to claim it.
- The Faroe Islands are 240 miles from Scotland, 300 miles from Iceland and 650 miles from Denmark. It belongs, however, to Denmark, and no one thinks of claiming it because it is closer to its own shores.
- The Aleutian archipelago that forms an arc between Alaska and the Soviet Kamchatka peninsula is American. And yet its last islands are 300 miles from Alaska.
- Several isolated islands of the Sulon Archipelago are only 3 to 5 miles from Borneo. And yet they belong to the Philippines, from which they are ten times as far away.
- The islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are only 12 miles from Newfoundland, Canada. And yet it is French. And the islands of the Curaçao archipelago are 14 miles from Venezuela. And yet they are Dutch.
- The Falkland Islands are 1561 km from Argentina and 12000 km from England. And yet the latter decided that it should engage in war with Argentina for their sovereignty.
No other examples are needed, we think, to appreciate the value of the Turkish claim that the islands belong to the country to which they are nearest. Or that every country that has islands must share them with others that don’t.
The «living space» theory
Turkey’s claim that it is «suffocated» by the current regime of the Aegean – while it has not been suffocated for 50 years – but also its other claim that there are also demographic reasons that force the redistribution of the islands, remind Hitler’s theory of the «living space» (Lebensraum). With a similar justification, any country could pursue its expansion at the expense of neighboring countries either because they have a smaller population than its own or because they have more sea or more islands.
In fact, it is not Greece that is suffocating Turkey but Turkey that is suffocating Greece and persistently and systematically seeking its shrinking.
On the coasts of Turkey towards the Aegean, but also towards the Black Sea, solid Greek populations have lived since ancient times and developed a brilliant culture.
The monuments of this civilization are still there and are shown off by the Turks to foreign tourists as…. their own antiquities.
From 1914, the Turks exterminated a large part of these populations.
Another group of around 400,000 were forced to leave their ancient homes by 1919. Thus was created the first wave of refugees, a foreshock of what was to follow.
In 1922, over 1,300,000 Greeks of Asia Minor, who survived the massacres, were forced to flee by any means to Greece to save themselves.
Imbros and Tenedos were ceded to Turkey for the security of the Straits. Although they were excluded from the exchange of populations, they were de-Hellenized. And the Greeks of Constantinople had the same fate.
In 1923 they reached 300,000. Today it is a question of whether there are 6,000 left.
But, there is also a side of the matter, which never concerned our neighbors.
When the Turks take the measuring tape and ask for the distribution of the Aegean, with exact measurements from the Greek and Turkish coasts, they forget a small…. detail. That in this area, there is not only land and sea.
There are also people with national consciousness, with history and culture, who want and are entitled to live freely and decide their own fate.
And humans are not a species to distribute. We need to ask them where they want to belong and live.
The continental shelf
The starting point of the «Aegean crisis» can be chronologically placed in 1973.
On November 1 of that year, a map was published in the Turkish «Government Gazette» showing the areas of the Aegean in which the government of Ankara had given permission to conduct research to the Turkish Oil Company. Neither more nor less, an arbitrary unilateral demarcation of the continental shelf of the Northeast Aegean had been made on the map and mainly Greek areas had been included in it (see maps 2 and 3).
From May 29, 1974 (the anniversary of the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks)
The Turkish oceanographic vessel «Çadarli» is going to the disputed areas for research, which will last until June 6.
Great tension follows in Greek-Turkish relations, which, however, is overshadowed in a few days by the shocking developments in Cyprus which resulted in the Turkish invasion of the island and the occupation of 40% of its territory.
On July 18 — two days before the Turkish invasion — the government of Ankara granted the same Oil Company the right to explore and exploit a part of the bottom of the southeastern Aegean that belongs to Greece.
And in July – August 1976, the Turkish research vessel «Hora» goes out into the Aegean, in the areas that the Turkish government had arbitrarily demarcated, and a new great tension and risk of war is created between the two countries.
Not by law
Greece reacts to all these challenges. Denounces them as arbitrary and illegal. Protests in Ankara and resort to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the Security Council.
Turkey does not refuse negotiations. This is followed by meetings and talks between representatives of the two countries at various levels. Ankara even appears willing to come to The Hague Court. And it commits himself to this in a written statement at the meeting of the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey in the summer of 1975. But in the end, it perverts himself by denying his authority. It also accepts the meeting of groups of experts from the two countries to examine the issue of the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf. But they end up nowhere.
It is thus established, beyond any doubt, that there are no possibilities to regulate the issue within legal frameworks. Ankara is completely unwilling to move in this direction. And the reason is understandable.
Expansionary policy
Turkey does not claim its legal rights in the Aegean, because simply, it does not have such rights. Nor is he exactly interested in the continental shelf. If it was about that, there would be no problem. The issue would be purely technical. What applies internationally and has been established by practice would be applied. The Aegean continental shelf would be demarcated, and the issue would end. This happened in dozens of similar cases between different countries. It also happened in the case of Greece and Italy. They demarcated the continental shelf in the dividing sea, without arguing. And they signed a relevant agreement. The event went almost unnoticed.
Turkey, on the contrary, used the issue of the continental shelf as a pretext or as a starting point to push its claims at the expense of Greek space. While he had initially accepted that the problem was technical, he later turned it into a political one. He demanded that the internationally valid ones for the continental shelf be set aside. international practice to be abandoned. To ignore the fact that the islands have a continental shelf and to deal with the issue as a Greek-Turkish dispute over an area, which in Ankara’s opinion was not fair to belong entirely to Greece. He had to share it with her.
That is, he neither more nor less asked for the division of the Aegean, but, because he could not state this openly, he proposed the division of the continental shelf of the sea, without taking into account the continental shelf of the Greek islands. And then, escalating her demands, she unleashed a campaign to undermine Greek sovereignty in the Dodecanese and claimed sovereignty over the Aegean airspace and demilitarization of the Greek islands located near its continental shores.
However, if these claims were accepted, the Greeks would be trapped on the Turkish continental shelf. They would become easy prey. And at some later stage, unfortified and vulnerable as they would be, they would be occupied by Turkish forces. With this perspective, in April 1975, Turkey formed a new army, the so-called «Army of the Aegean» based in Smyrna, and stationed it on the coast opposite the Greek islands. Let us also remember the threat of the Turkish Minister Ezebel on 22.1.75, i.e. 5 months after the invasion of Cyprus, that «Cyprus is the first step towards the Aegean«.
Turkish policy is a denial of international legitimacy. It could not be otherwise since it claims foreign lands and not legal rights. And of course the positions and arguments she puts forward to substantiate her claims are similar.
- Refuses to accept that the Greek islands close to its shores have their own continental shelf, just like the continental shores. And it insists that it is not bound by the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Convention on the Law of the Sea, simply because it did not sign them. But both of them reflect international customs and customs consolidated by long practice.
- It refuses to accept as a way of demarcating the continental shelf the principle of the middle line that applies in the case of coasts, which are located opposite each other, based on measuring the coasts of Asia Minor and the Greek islands of the Aegean. It insists that… the islands be ignored and that the principle of line position is applied based on measuring the continental coasts of Greece and Turkey (division of the Aegean continental shelf).
- It claims that its difference with Greece is not of a legal and technical nature, but political. In 1974, however, the then-Turkish Prime Minister M. Ecevit repeatedly characterized the difference as technical and economic.
- It refers to the geomorphology of the bottom of the Aegean and claims that the continental shelf of the sea is a natural extension of the Anatolian peninsula.
- While initially accepted the appeal to the Hague Tribunal, he now rejects it.
- Persistently proposes the co-exploitation of the «disputed» areas. That is, of the Greek regions.
- Seeks the conclusion of an agreement on the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf, in derogation of the applicable international rules and international practice.
- It argues, finally, that its seismographic surveys in the Aegean, outside its territorial waters, do not violate Greek sovereign rights, with the argument that since the continental shelf has not been demarcated, there is no issue. The same is claimed for the granting of licenses to the Turkish Petroleum Company. (See map 3 and drawings 3,4,5 and 6).
The Greek positions
It is not difficult to prove that Turkey’s positions and arguments not only have no legal foundation but also do not withstand the most cursory criticism. Greece has signed and ratified the Geneva Convention of 1958 «on the continental shelf». According to this convention, our islands also have a continental shelf. Article 1 states that the term «continental shelf» is used to mean:
«a) the bottom of the sea and the subsoil of the subsea areas adjacent to the coasts, but located outside the territorial zone, up to a depth of 200 m. or beyond this limit, up to the point where the depth of the Overlying Waters allows exploiting the natural fires of several areas.
b) the bottom of the sea and the subsoil of the corresponding subsea areas, which are continuous towards the shores of the islands».
It should be noted that the above also applies to countries that did not sign the Geneva Convention and the decisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, since they are a codification of customary rules of International Law.
The continental shelf of Greece is for the most part an unbroken unity.
Because the Aegean Sea, beyond our territorial waters, is not very deep. It ranges from 50 to 500 meters. Therefore, the seabed is exploitable with today’s technological means throughout its area. Thus the continental shelf of Greece is almost an unbroken continuity.
Fig. 5. Geological concept of the continental shelf: The extension of the coast, with a slight slope, below the surface of the sea. Beyond the continental shelf, the bottom has a great slope and forms the continental slope to the bottom of sea, called the continental shelf.
Fig. 6. Legal concept of the continental shelf. It is essentially different from the geological concept and should not be confused with it at all. According to the Geneva Convention of 1958, the continental shelf is the bottom of the sea, and the subsoil of the marine areas located immediately after the littoral zone, up to a depth of 200 m or more, up to the point where it is possible to exploit the natural resources of the seabed and its subsoil.
The Turkish continental shelf ends where the continental shelf of the Greek islands begins. There is no Turkish continental shelf west of the Greek islands. The Geneva Convention (Article 6) clearly states:
«In the event that a reef abuts the territories of two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other, the limits of the continental shelf between these States shall be determined by agreement between the States in question. In the absence of agreement and as long as special circumstances do not justify a different definition of the boundaries, these are determined under the middle line, every point of which is at an equal distance from the most guaranteed points of the baselines, from which the width of the territorial zone of each of them is measured of these states«.
This means that the Turkish continental shelf reaches the middle of the distance that separates the Turkish coasts from the coasts of the Greek islands.
But, the geomorphology of the bottom of the Aegean does not favor Turkish claims at all. The Aegean continental shelf is not an underwater continuation of the territory of Asia Minor — as Ankara claims — but of the mainland and island coasts of Greece. This is proven by the formation of the Aegean seabed. After all, the layout of the islands shows that these are extensions of Evia and Mount Athos.
And if, however, the continental shelf of the sea constituted a geological continuation of the Turkish coast, rights would not be created in favor of Turkey, since each island has its own continental shelf, as is explicitly recognized by the internationally applicable laws.
Research and exploration
Under normal circumstances, any country that wishes to do so can conduct scientific research on the surface of the high seas that extends beyond the Greek territorial waters, based on the principle of the high seas. As long as it does not harm the Greek rights and has express consent. Also, similar scientific research can be done in the seabed by a recognized national institution, which, however, is obliged to publish the results of its research.
The Geneva Convention (Article 2) says:
«1.The coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the reef for the purpose of exploring it, as well as exploiting its natural resources.
2. The rights intended in paragraph 1 of this article are exclusively subject to the concept that, if the coastal State does not explore the reef or exploit its natural resources, no one can undertake such activities, nor claim rights on the reef without the express consent of the coastal State».
Also, article 5 par. 8 defines:
«All investigations must be carried out with the consent of the coastal State. However, the coastal State must not normally refuse its consent, as long as the application is submitted under an Organization gathering the necessary conditions for research of a purely scientific nature relating to the physical or biological characteristics of the reef provided that the coastal State will may, as long as he so desires, participate in said investigations or be represented in them and that, in any case, the results thereof will be published«.
Investigations, therefore, by Turkey on our continental shelf — continental and insular — cannot be done without our express consent, and this consent, at a time when Turkey has projected plans to the detriment of Greek space and will therefore use every concession made to it against us, it is not possible today to give.
For the same reasons, Greece categorically rejects any Turkish proposal for «joint exploitation» of the Greek continental shelf.
Beyond the law
Ankara’s claim that the Geneva Convention does not bind it since it did not «sign» does not stand. This convention is not just an agreement between certain states, which decided at some point to regulate the issues of the continental shelf, in a way that suits them. It is essentially a codification of customary international law and principles that already existed and were internationally accepted.
The same thing happened during the conference on the Law of the Sea in 1982. That is why Turkey did not sign its decisions. They did not bring it precisely because they were effectively ratifying the Geneva Convention on the continental shelf of islands. This shows that he refuses to respect international legality. That he has aspirations that are not based on international law.
However, there are fixed rules of international behavior, which no country has the right to violate by claiming that it does not accept them or has not signed the international agreements that imposed them. Because Turkey does not accept the Geneva Convention and the Law of the Sea, it believes that this gives it the right to claim that the issue of the continental shelf is political and not legal or technical, as it had initially admitted. However, the International Court of Justice of The Hague also characterized the issue as legal in paragraph 31 of its decision of 19-12-78 on the Aegean continental shelf.
For the same reason, Turkey gives its own arbitrary interpretations on the subject or formulates its own original theories about the continental shelf. And this, finally, is the reason that calls us to leave aside the internationally valid ones and to negotiate an ab initio configuration of the Aegean regime. That is, to share our possessions with her, but certainly not hers.
Athen’s FIR (Flight Information Region)
It is known that for the safety of flights, the different regions of the earth were divided – after international conferences, into Flight Information Sectors. This is the FIR which is of great importance to air traffic regulation. Because airplanes move at high speed and fly at night or in conditions where there is no visibility, they must be directed by the control centers of various countries to avoid accidents.
A country’s FIR does not always coincide with its airspace. Since there are international high seas there is also international airspace. Thus, the FIR of some countries extends beyond the airspace and includes parts of the international airspace. However, this does not mean at all the expansion of its airspace, in which its sovereignty is exercised exclusively. In FIR he does not exercise sovereignty. It is simply a function entrusted to it by the international community for the safe coordination and regulation of air traffic. This also happens in the case of Greece.
On 7.12.1944, the convention «on International Civil Aviation» was signed in Chicago by 37 States. This basis generally regulated the issues of international air communication which provided for the creation of an International Organization whose task would be to solve the issues of international aviation. On 7.4.47, after the ratification of the Chicago Convention by 26 states, the International Civil Aviation Organization (I.C.A.O.) was founded. (Greek Law 211/1974).
For Europe, ICAO regulated the FIR limits of its member countries with the Paris regional (or regional) plan of 23.6.1952 and the Geneva regional plan of 1958.
These plans define the current boundaries of the Athens FIR. Turkey took part in both conferences and accepted the definition of the airspace for which Greece was designated responsible. That is the space in which air transport is regulated and controlled by competent Greek services. In other words, civil aviation has to abide by the rules and regulations of this FIR to ensure the safety, smoothness and efficiency of air traffic.
With these two regional plans, which are multilateral international Conventions, under the supervision of the ICAO, the distribution of the airspace of Europe, including the Greek-Turkish space, had been regulated.
Regarding the Athens FIR, the two plans above had defined that its eastern borders would coincide with the land and sea Greek-Turkish borders, thus simultaneously regulating the western borders of the Turkish FIR.
In particular: The Athens FIR covers the airspace from the Ionian Sea to the west to the Turkish coast to the east. The eastern limits, in particular, are determined by the imaginary line that starts from the Evros, passes between the eastern Aegean islands and the Turkish coast, continues between the Dodecanese and the south-western coasts of Asia Minor and ends at the point defined by the geographical coordinates 36o 5′ N and 30° 0′ E. So, the Athens FIR includes the entire Greek national space and scattered parts of the international airspace.
According to other ICAO provisions and regulations and based on international practice, all aircraft, including military aircraft flying west of Turkey, were required to follow flight plans and report their position once they crossed the FIR boundaries approximately one minute later. after their removal from Turkish shores. This applies to military aircraft both when en route and overflying international airstrips and during other flights — such as reconnaissance — and during exercises. At this point, it was under the control of the Athens FIR, which was also responsible for providing meteorological and other information. Placing the Athens FIR further west would force Greek aircraft to come under Turkish control while flying over the Greek islands.
It is worth adding that, in addition to ICAO, NATO also recognized for 22 years in Greece a zone of responsibility and operational control over the entire Aegean airspace, west of the sea border between Greece and Turkey.
The new coup
Suddenly, in August 1974, Turkey with the famous NOTAM 714/6.8.74 coup abrogated the above conventions and arbitrarily extended the boundaries of its own FIR westward into the area of responsibility of the Athens FIR. It even placed them at the limits that she extended her visions to the Aegean. That is, in an area that includes the islands of Samothraki, Limnos, Lesvos, Agios Efstratios. Psara, Antipsara, Chios, Ikaria and all the Dodecanese. In other words, Turkey expected the planes flying in the Aegean to report their position to the Turkish control stations and to receive flight instructions from them. (See maps X3 and X4).
It was an unprecedented action, which created confusion in aviation and posed great risks to airplanes. Pilots no longer knew where to report and what directions to follow to reach their destination safely. International law obliged them to comply with the Athens FIR. But they also could not ignore Turkey’s claim to be mentioned in its own FIR.
Greece, as it had an obligation, declared the Aegean a dangerous area with NOTAMs 1066 and 1152 of 14.8.74. It no longer assumed the responsibility of coordinating and regulating aviation in the region since, due to Turkey’s interference, it could not guarantee the safety of flights. Thus, international companies stopped using the Aegean. And planes going to or leaving Turkey were forced to make a big circle and follow Bulgarian airstrips.
The danger was made even greater by the fact that during that period there were particularly many violations of Greek airspace by Turkish warplanes and Greek planes were taking off to intercept them.
ICAO undertook mediation efforts and made representations to both sides to end the disruption that had been created in air traffic but to no avail. Finally, Ankara, again suddenly and unilaterally decided to take NOTAM 714 only on February 22, 1980. And it projected this action as proof of goodwill.
But it was not a show of goodwill at all. It simply gained nothing by the disruption it caused while damaging its tourism and air transport in general. This was the reason that obliged it to respect international legality in this case, while in many other cases it does not show any respect.
The territorial waters
Turkey, while asserting its non-existent rights in the Aegean, prevents us from exercising legal rights. It even threatens us with war if we dare to extend our Aegean zone to 12 miles:
«It has often been said to Greece that if it attempts to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles, Turkey will regard this act as a cause of war. Greece will not risk such a thing.» (Message of the Turkish Foreign Minister Çaglayangil to the Greek Prime Minister Mr. Karamanlis 24.10.79)
«We don’t like to use the word war. This issue (extension of Greece’s territorial waters) is of vital importance for Turkey. Anyone who wants to understand understands what we want to say. We do not accept under any circumstances the 12 nautical miles in the Aegean. In such seas there is ground and there are ways of mutual agreement. This is a matter of great interest to Turkey. We are categorically determined not to allow fait accompli.» (Statement of Turkish Prime Minister Bülend Ulusu, January 1982)
After all, Greece, like Turkey, has the right to extend its coastal zone to 12 miles. This right of hers derives from international rules on the Law of the Sea and is now explicitly established by the Montego Bay Convention of Jamaica in December 1982.
Turkey, without having signed any of these conventions in order to have «free hands», nevertheless benefited from the possibilities they provide and extended its territorial waters in the Black Sea and its southern coasts to 12 miles. Thus overcoming first the 6 miles that the Mediterranean countries had which forced other countries — such as Syria and Cyprus — to do the same. However, it refrained from extending its territorial zone to the Aegean as well, so as not to provoke, apparently, similar Greek action.
And she didn’t limit herself to that, of course, but she also started threatening us with war if we exercised the rights she already exercised. Thus he gave us yet another opportunity to ascertain how he perceives the application of international law.
Map 2. The Turkish threat in the Aegean.
The Turkish expansionist ambitions in the Aegean are depicted as they arise: a) From maps published in the «Government Gazette» of Turkey on 1/11/1973 and 8/6/ 1974 and b) From the Turkish NOTAM of 25/11/1973 to the International Civil Aviation Organization (I.C.A.O.).
The phrase «Turkey-Greece border» is a translation of the Turkish wording «Turkiye – Yunanistan Musterek Hundulu», noted on the map of the Turkish «Government Gazette» of 1/11/1973.
Map 3
The Turkish threat in the Aegean and Greek rights. Depicted are the borders of the areas claimed by Turkey, in relation:
a) With the maritime median line between the Greek islands and the coasts of Asia Minor, which defines the limits of the continental shelf of Greece and Turkey as derived from the International Aegean Sea (Treaty of Geneva 1958, Treaty of the Aegean Sea 1982)
b) With the eastern air control limits of FIR A of Αthens.
Determination of the territorial waters
Fig.I
Determining the limit of the territorial waters with the «trace parallel» method. The boundary line is drawn parallel to the coast and at a constant distance (a= 3 to 12 nautical miles).
Fig. 2
Determining the limit of the territorial waters with the “courbe tangente” method. A dense system of regions centered on the characteristic points of the coasts and with a fixed radius equal to the width of the territorial zone (α = 3 to 12 nautical miles) is initially drawn. The boundary line of the territorial waters is the perimeter of these regions.
demarcation of maritime borders
Determination of maritime boundaries
Fig. 3. clearance of maritime boundary median line of adjacent states. Each point is equally distant from the opposite coasts of the two states. The way of distribution of the conjunctivitis zone is obvious.
Determination of maritime boundaries
Fig.4 Determination of the maritime border median line of states (continental or island), when the coasts of one are opposite the coasts of the other. The distribution of the Aegialite zone is obvious when the distance between the coasts of the two states is smaller than the width of the Aegialite zone (a= 3 to 12 nautical miles).
The average borderline always remains the same and does not depend on the width of the territorial zone.
The fortification of the islands
Turkey accuses Greece of having fortified the islands located near our shores, in violation of the international treaties that shaped the Aegean regime. But the strange thing would be if he had not fortified them. It is a fact, of course, that the treaties of Lausanne and Paris provided for the partial or total demilitarization of some of our critical islands, but allowed forces for the local defense of the islands, we respected them for 50 whole years, because there had simply been no expansionary tendencies on the part of Turkey, nor actions that could constitute a threat against Greek space. On the contrary, neither International Law nor any treaty foresees any limitation of the right of defence, which is also guaranteed by the UN Charter.
From 1974, however, the scene changed radically. Turkey made claims against the islands. And it wasn’t just defined in words. It also proceeded with projects, formed on its shores towards the Aegean, opposite the islands, the Fourth Army (the Aegean Army) with a strength of 120,000 men and reinforced it with a powerful amphibious fleet of 120 ships. It attacked Cyprus and occupied 40% of its territory. And it proceeded with innumerable violations of the Greek maritime and airspace and other challenges, such as the expansion of the FIR of Istanbul at the expense of the FIR of Athens and the exits of its seismographic vessels that were not limited to Turkish or international waters but also penetrated into Greek maritime areas.
Turkey keeps quiet about all this and limits itself to the letter of the Lausanne and Paris treaties, in order to create the international impression that it is not Turkey but Greece that is violating its international obligations. However, in order to form an objective perception of the situation, one must take into account the following:
- Greece has not waived the right to protect its national territory by any international treaty or agreement. And the defensive measures it takes are proportional to the threat it faces. In the case of the islands, he made use of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for the right of self-defense.
- There is no guarantee for the safety of the islands except for the measures we have been forced to take. Turkey attacked Cyprus when it found it virtually disarmed. Instead of respecting the island’s inability to mount an effective defense, he saw it as an opportunity to attack it.
- All UN resolutions calling on Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus remained unimplemented. Ankara despised them. After that, demilitarization of the islands would make them vulnerable and at the mercy of a Turkish invasion. Let us not forget that strong military forces are stationed on the opposite Turkish shores.
- Contrary to the character of the Turkish Army of the Aegean, which is an offensive force, the Greek islands have a purely defensive fortification. There are no downward forces in them. Their equipment is solely aimed at neutralizing a potential attack from the Turkish coast.
The situation that prevailed in the Aegean when the Lausanne and Paris treaties were signed was completely different from the one that prevails today. Those conditions really served peace at the time by providing for the partial or total demilitarization of the Greek islands. However, Turkey made sure to overturn the principles on which the two treaties were based. And so the demilitarization of the islands no longer serves the cause of peace. It is not in accordance with the spirit of the Lausanne and Paris treaties. If the islands are disarmed we will not have peace but war. No one can predict at this time what the international consequences of such an eventuality might be. Only the balance of power in the Aegean and the ability of the islands to mount an effective defense can protect the security and peace of the region.
Turkey itself with the Treaty of Montreux (1936) which ended the regime of demilitarization of the Straits, also accepted the termination of the regime of demilitarization of Lemnos and Samothrace.
On 31.7.1936 during the debate in the Grand Turkish National Assembly, on the ratification of the Treaty of Montreux, Rousdi Aras, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of Ismet Inonou, made the historic statement: «The provisions concerning the islands of Lemnos and Samothraki which belong to our neighbor and friend Greece and which had been disarmed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, are also abolished by the Treaty of Montreux and we are particularly happy about that..«.
The following could be said especially for the Dodecanese:
a) In the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, Turkey was not a contracting party, nor was there any provision that gave it any right. So for Turkey, the Treaty was res alios acta and therefore she is not entitled to raise any claim regarding the status of the Dodecanese, and
b) Areas that were placed under a demilitarization regime by the same Treaty were released following unilateral actions by the States concerned which were parties to the Treaty (e.g. Pantellaria). This precedent legitimizes Greece to act accordingly (Article 60, Vienna Convention, 1969).
Peace with freedom
Greece wants peace in the Aegean. He proved it for 60 years. But she is not willing to secure it by sacrificing her freedom. He agrees to discuss any issue with Turkey, but not its sovereign rights.
International law and international practice can be applied to any disputed issue, such as e.g. in the case of the Aegean continental shelf, the demarcation of which is necessary. And if Turkey accepted the same, there would be a crisis in the Aegean. But Turkey does not want international law to be applied in any issue. And in no matter does it follow the international practice.
Actually, there are no differences between Greece and Turkey. There are aspirations of Turkey at the expense of Greece.
Differences can be discussed and resolved. But territorial ambitions are non-negotiable. No country negotiates its sovereign rights.
Turkey created the Aegean crisis. It is therefore up to her to end it. And he will end it if international law is respected.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου