[ad_1]
Sunday’s Vima unveils the so-called “Berlin Protocols” and information about the talks started by the German presidency, where Athens and Ankara tried to get closer to resuming exploratory talks, which, however, failed under the responsibility of Turkey.
The first protocol of last July (7/13/2020) stipulated that exploratory talks would focus on the delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. But the condition that the two sides during the talks refrain from any hydrocarbon activity in the disputed areas led Ankara to torpedo the effort and pursue NAVTEX tensions and challenges.
The second attempt in September (9/18/2020) to agree is made through a videoconference of the representatives of Germany, Greece and Turkey, Hecker, Surani, Kalin, from which emerged the second Berlin protocol and states that Greece and Turkey are committed to resolving their disputes under international law. A key point is that Athens and Ankara will work to create a favorable climate for talks on Confidence-Building Measures and political consultations before the end of the year.
Jerusalem Post analyst Seth Franzmann spoke about Turkey’s role in an interview with SKAI and George Eugenides.
The interview
G. Eugenidis: I would like to start by asking how you see the role of Turkey
in the wider area after NAVTEX issued a few days ago,
which further destabilizes the area. And this is because we were on the path of exploratory contacts, which are now out of the question …
S. Franzman: We have learned that Turkey is basically using NAVTEX and other crises to blackmail various countries. It attracts countries, like Greece or even Israel, that pretend to want to negotiate, but play the same circular game of challenges. And, until someone treats them with dire consequences, they will continue to play this game. However, it is always an advantage for them, since they always choose the moment and the point of the crisis. So I think we should
there should be some kind of reaction, otherwise it will always be at Ankara’s discretion.
G. Eugenidis: So what is Ankara’s goal? What do they seek? Want a broader dialogue on a variety of topics that are not currently on the table? And are they potentially even pursuing a conflict that will dictate new terms for dialogue?
S. Franzman: The evidence shows that Ankara only dialogues with Russia or even with Iran, which is a country with authoritarian regimes, so they are natural partners of an authoritarian regime like Ankara. Against democracies like Greece, Israel or Cyprus, they simply want to threaten and have made it absolutely clear that they want to use the crisis to express nationalist sentiment within the country. And, basically, there are no consequences. I do not believe that any country should negotiate with Turkey until they are forced to come to the table. We should not constantly be “actors” in their own “circus”.
G. Eugenidis: Describe this Turkish “overextension”. From Iraq, Armenia to Libya. How far can this go? How long will it last? And what are the possible consequences of this Turkish behavior? Will there be consequences for this Turkish behavior?
S. Franzman: If you look at the nature of the Turkish government and the Turkish regime,
it refers to the course of a traditional extremist regime of the 1920s or 1930s. I don’t think that this type of government will stop, if nothing is found to stop them, something that will draw a line. I think history shows that they have not faced any obstacles. And I don’t exactly think there is an overextension. Turkey certainly has an economic problem, but it is a strong country. And he sees that he has new drones, new air defense systems and I think he wants to test them. Certainly not against Greece, which is a member of NATO, but uses them in Syria and elsewhere.
G. Eugenidis: Do you think that the EU has means of pressure on Turkey, possibly with financial sanctions? Should the Erdogan government succumb to such pressure?
S. Franzman: What we have seen in the past, in 2015, is that Turkey is absolutely ready to use immigration, which is a violation of international law, to blackmail countries with migrants. The EU is ready to do the same. and especially Germany is in fact “bribed”, as a result of which they find themselves in an extremely difficult position. Because this means that, on any given day, Turkey may decide that “if they don’t give us enough money, we will send migrants.” This behavior is not acceptable and I think there should be real consequences and that may mean sanctions, but not so Trump’s sanctions in 2019. This is the only move Ankara understands, in a straight line. Which, by the way, is the way they treat Russia.
G. Eugenidis: Since you mentioned the Trump administration, what will be the role of the United States in the region? Will it be a more active role after the November 3 elections?
S. Franzman: The general direction of the United States is to withdraw from the region. In a Biden presidency, I think the United States will be tougher on Turkey. Obviously, they will try to revive the transatlantic alliance, although that generally means not using force, but dialogue. The Trump administration uses more power, but at the same time has a transactional approach: “You buy an F-35, I give you something.” However, Minister Pompeo’s trip to Greece and Cyprus was symbolic. He begins to realize the need to create an axis of Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Source: skai.gr
