[ad_1]
The Turkish government seems to be oriented towards an escalation and maintenance of tension, unprecedented even for Turkey, for reasons related to the perception of a “favorable” situation for the implementation of the Turkish doctrine of overexpansion, but also due to the need to An alternative narrative for Turkish public opinion. You will soon find yourself facing the consequences of Erdogan’s stunts on an issue you almost completely ignore, the economy.
The way Turkey has been behaving in the Eastern Mediterranean lately shows that Mr. Erdogan has chosen the policy of imposing on the ground and with the threat of war, while secondly considering negotiation, always of course in his own terms. which make this process objectionable from the beginning for Greece.
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Turkey’s illegal actions in the eastern Mediterranean are not so much aimed at locating hydrocarbons as at projecting a new historical narrative shaped by Erdogan on the milestone of the centenary of the founding of the Turkish Republic. That is, the emergence of Turkey as a regional power and the breaking of Lausanne’s “ties” with territorial expansion either on land (to Syria) or to the Sea with the Blue Homeland Doctrine but also with the expansion of influence Through religion and minorities, aiming from the Middle East, the Gulf, Sub-Saharan Africa, reaches North Africa and extends to the Balkans and Thrace.
Erdogan’s message for yesterday’s “Victory Day” (Kemal’s victory in Asia Minor), “we will not allow new Sevres in the Blue Homeland”, was clear:
“Turkey’s struggle for independence and its future continues today. It is no coincidence that those who seek to exclude us from the Eastern Mediterranean are the same invaders as those who tried to invade our homeland a century ago. Just as our nation achieved victory in its struggle. For independence despite poverty and deprivation, he will never hesitate to thwart Sevres’s wishes and movements in the Blue Homeland today. “No one should have doubts about our determination on this matter and our unshakeable faith in victory.”
This is the spirit and perception that Greece and the international community have of him …
.jpg)
It is not Greece that has to deal with an uncomfortable neighbor who only wants to usurp the hydrocarbons that can be discovered in a large area. It is Europe, the United States, the Arab world, Israel that have to face a general attack from Turkey in order to impose by force its regional role, in effect demanding all others to bow down and fulfill their own aspirations.
The military escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean, which after several years seems to be pushing the Atlantic Alliance itself to its limits, does not seem to stop immediately, at least before Erdogan considers that it has obtained political and diplomatic benefits, depending on what. happen to him. brought a military victory. It is a well-known tactic of Turkey to profit simply from the threat of war and the politics of an international vagabond.
In this environment, it is extremely difficult to reduce tension and this creates a constant threat of conflict and general destabilization in the region, as regional forces have already taken a position in this conflict.
The red lines established three days ago by French President Macron, the movements of Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, form an extremely flammable framework, since in this game no force can easily back down.
Turkey and Erdo εκτόςan with their extreme rhetoric are finally caught in extreme positions from which, especially for the Turkish president, who is experiencing his “greatness”, it will be extremely difficult to withdraw, especially when he seems to be doing so under pressure from the EU or the bureaucracy. of the State Department.
Also in the case of Greece, Turkey wants to apply the tactic it followed in Cyprus, even though it initially had the pretext of invoking the Guarantee regime to “safeguard” the interests of the Turkish Cypriot community.
The challenges against Cyprus went unanswered and have long been tolerated by Greece and the EU. and this created a negative fact while cultivating misconceptions in Ankara about the limits of tolerance for its challenges.
Even in Cyprus, however, not only does it not safeguard the interests of Turkish Cypriots, but its claims turn 44% of the Cypriot EEZ in the north and west of the island into … a Turkish continental shelf.
Furthermore, another oxymoron of the Turkish visa is that, for example, for Crete or Kastelorizo it insists that they have no influence because it is on the “wrong side of the border between the two continents”, Turkey itself has signed an agreement with the occupying regime in Cyprus to delimit the EEZ between the occupied northern part of Cyprus and the opposite Turkish coast. According to the theory it supports for the Greek islands, Turkey should not have signed the so-called agreement with the pseudo-state but with countries that have continental coasts, such as Israel, Lebanon and Egypt.
The letter to the UN Secretary General
In his letter to the UN Secretary General, the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the UN, F. Sinirioglu, raises a series of questions that seem to prepare the Turkish argument and complete Ankara’s diplomatic tremor for the next phase of negotiations.
Turkey wants to cancel the Greek-Egyptian Pact and this is clear from the intensity of its reactions and from its constant reports in letters to the UN.
Rather misleading was the impression that an informal moratorium had been agreed through Berlin, which on the one hand suspended the implementation of an illegal NAVTEX in an unrestricted continental shelf area and on the other called for the suspension of the exercise of sovereignty. legal, as the Greece-Egypt Agreement for the partial delimitation of the EEZ. And it is immediately necessary for Athens to officially deny that such an arrangement had taken place, or if this impression had been given, to restore the real image immediately and clearly.
And it is obvious that Turkey does not have the legitimacy to accuse Greece of torpedoing the dialogue because it signed the Agreement with Egypt, when it signed eight months before the absurd Turkolyvic Memorandum that “violates” not only the Law of the Sea but also the geography itself and the at the same time it launches its fleet to support an illegal seismic survey in an area of unlimited continental shelf.
Regarding the argument that Kastelorizo cannot have influence in maritime areas, when even Crete itself in the Greco-Egyptian Agreement has a reduced influence and therefore Turkey is entitled to baptize the continental shelf of the Eastern Mediterranean as Turkish.
The absurdity of this argument is evident, since even in the extreme case in which the Turkish argument was accepted, it would have to be preceded by an agreement of demarcation and no dispute of the specific area, for Turkey to have the right to carry out investigations.
Turkey, which is not a party to the Law of the Sea but promotes its unilateral, arbitrary and fragmentary applications, cannot appear as an honoree of the Law of the Sea, in fact applying what it perceives as a “right” offered by the Law of the Sea. …
After all, each negotiation and each demarcation is different and has different characteristics and if in the case of the Agreement with Egypt the two parties agreed to move north and to the detriment of our country, the middle line does not mean that it will be the rule, as in This In this case, there was a broader Agreement between Athens and Cairo and in this context, the middle line provision was accepted.
However, to avoid any doubts, Turkey clarified how it refers to exploratory contacts. In her letter to the UN, she notes that “exploratory contacts are a comprehensive dialogue mechanism that enables Turkey and Greece to address all outstanding differences.” These issues certainly include more than the continental shelf issue. “
Let’s at least keep in mind that even Exploratory contacts are no longer a path paved with roses …
[ad_2]
