[ad_1]
Among other things, it sends a clear message to Turkey and European leaders:
«The choice is clear. Turkey can cooperate and find common ground, or it can continue to act as an aggressor, playing games of impressions outside of Europe and paying a significant financial price for its behavior. You can choose whether Greece will be a bridge or an obstacle to partnership and progress, “she notes, adding:
“If Turkey had chosen the bridge, I believe that President Erdogan would still have the opportunity to reach an ambitious long-term agreement with the EU, which would benefit everyone.” Disputes are not resolved by force, tricks or manipulation, but also peacefully and through mutual respect and mutual understanding. This does not have to be the case. The solution is simple. We are sitting. We discuss our differences. And we are trying to reach an agreement. If we do not succeed, we will let the International Court of Justice rule. “After all, what does Ankara have to fear from the rule of law?”
For the meeting in Berlin
The Prime Minister also referred to the Berlin meeting and Turkey’s withdrawal from the agreement: “Throughout all this, I have remained open to dialogue. When Berlin offered to mediate, we sat down in good faith to try to find common ground. We even managed to get to “Written agreement”. The result was that Turkey eventually withdrew, revealing informal but secret discussions. The hopes that I continue to have for Turkey do not hide my reality. “We need dialogue, but not under the blackmail regime.”
For the meeting with Erdogan
In addition, he refers to the first meeting he had with T. Erdogan and how things have changed in that year. “When we met last fall, I told President Erdogan that we are destined to be neighbors due to our geographical location and as such we must coexist, live in peace next to each other. I tried diligently to extend a hand of friendship and cooperation.. I spoke of an open dialogue, a desire for progress and my willingness to act to build a bridge between Turkey and Europe. Unfortunately, things took a different turn. “After that first meeting, Turkey appears less as a partner and more as a provocateur,” she said in her article.
The full Kyriakos Mitsotakis article:
“In their quest to predict the future, political scientists often turn to the past, to common history. The relationship between my country, Greece, and neighboring Turkey is no exception. History teaches us that there are reasons for optimism but also areas of deep concern Today, the question of what the future holds – conflict or cooperation – becomes more important than ever.
When I took office as Prime Minister last July, I was moderately optimistic. There was no reason to believe that Greece and Turkey could not be friendly countries. After all, many of my predecessors had managed to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Leaders like Eleftherios Venizelos, my father’s uncle, who signed a friendship and peace agreement with Kemal Ataturk in 1930. Of course, there have been tensions since then, but the good days were much more than the bad ones.
When we met last fall, I told President Erdogan that we are meant to be neighbors due to our geographical location, and as such we must live together, live together in peace with each other. I tried diligently to extend a hand of friendship and cooperation. I spoke of an open dialogue, a desire for progress and my willingness to act to build a bridge between Turkey and Europe.
Unfortunately, things took a different turn. After that first meeting, Turkey appears less as a partner and more as a provocateur. Late last year, President Erdogan signed an illegal border demarcation agreement with one of the parties to Libya’s bloody civil war. As Turkey and Libya have no adjacent objects or coasts, the agreement was declared invalid by the majority of the international community and legal experts and was found to violate the sovereign rights of third countries, including Greece.
In March, Turkey proceeded to coordinated movements in order to encourage and facilitate the efforts of desperate migrants to cross the borders of Greece. We defended our borders with the support of our EU partners. Our collective message was clear: Greece’s borders are EU borders and we will protect them.
And this summer, in response to the signing of a long-standing, legal and internationally recognized maritime border agreement between Greece and Egypt, President Erdogan dispatched his navy to support a natural gas exploration effort in the region. Greece and Turkey are demanding rights that have not yet been demarcated. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, this was a unilateral act that violates international law.
Greece has never sought and will never seek to escalate these tensions, regardless of the challenges. But the initially unsavory print policy has certainly turned into a threatening stance in recent weeks. With each passing day, the Turkish government makes a new false claim or spreads a new lie. Bellicose language, nationalist propaganda, aggressive militarism, purchase of weapons systems from Russia that pose a threat to NATO, conversion of world heritage sites to mosques, illegal maritime activity and threats of war.
Turkish rhetoric belongs to a bygone era. Talk about enemies, witnesses, fight and willingness to pay any price. This is the language and behavior of a candidate country, threatening not only two Member States of the European Union, Greece and Cyprus, but also the EU itself, a fact that seriously concerns the Member States.
In this new geopolitical landscape, Turkey is increasingly isolated. While Greece has forged strong alliances with countries like Israel, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, Turkey is acting alone, playing games of impressions in the Eastern Mediterranean, intervening in Syria and Libya, and openly supporting Hamas. France, which has vital national interests in the Mediterranean, supports us and has strengthened its military presence in the region. The US State Department has unequivocally condemned Turkey’s stance as a unilateral offensive.
During all this I have remained open to dialogue. When Berlin offered to mediate, we sat down in good faith to try to find common ground. We even managed to reach a “written agreement”. The result was that Turkey eventually withdrew, revealing informal but secret discussions.
The hopes that I continue to have for Turkey do not hide my reality. We need dialogue, but not under the blackmail regime. The threat to the security and stability of my country is also a threat to the prosperity and security of all EU Member States and threatens to undermine the NATO alliance. And it threatens the rule of law at the international level. Greece has the military capacity to repel any Turkish attack. But certainly a military incident between our two countries does not interest anyone.
Later this month, EU leaders will hold a special session to decide how to respond. If Turkey refuses to reason until then, I see no choice but for European leaders to impose substantial sanctions. Because it is no longer just a matter of European solidarity. It is about recognizing the fact that vital interests are at stake: European strategic interests. If Europe wants to be a real geopolitical power, then it cannot afford to appease a bellicose Turkey.
Turkey still has time to avoid sanctions, step back and find a way out of this crisis. Turkey should simply refrain from its naval and research activities in unlimited maritime zones and refrain from its aggressive rhetoric. She will have to walk away, go back to the table and pick up where she left off when she left the exploratory talks in 2016. And if we cannot agree, then we must seek a solution in The Hague.
The choice is clear. Turkey can cooperate and find common ground, or it can continue to act as an aggressor, playing games of impressions outside of Europe and paying a significant financial price for its behavior. You can choose whether Greece will be a bridge or an obstacle to partnership and progress.
If Turkey had chosen the bridge, I believe that President Erdogan would still have the potential to reach an ambitious and long-term agreement with the EU that would benefit everyone. Disputes are not resolved by force, deception or manipulation, but rather peacefully and through mutual respect and understanding. This does not have to be the case. The solution is simple. We are sitting. We discuss our differences. And we are trying to reach an agreement. If we do not succeed, we will let the International Court of Justice rule. “After all, what does Ankara have to fear from the rule of law?”
