Ankara: We say what we do, and do what we say
Ambassador Burak Ozugergin indicates Turkey will go ahead with exploratory drilling in areas within Greek continental shelf
Ankara always says what it does and does what it says, Turkish Ambassador to Athens Burak Ozugergin said in an interview with Kathimerini on Sunday, responding to a question about whether permits will be issued to the Turkish Petroleum Corporation for research in areas outlined in the country’s agreement with the Tripoli-based Libyan government.
The Turkish diplomat notes, however, that Ankara is open to a discussion on maritime borders with Athens, stressing that a delimitation would have to be “just, equitable and peaceful.”
Sea between Turkey and Greece. These disputes are relatively older and more complicated compared to those in the Eastern Mediterranean (don’t forget that it took 43 years for Greece to come to an agreement with Italy, involving a much simpler maritime space from a legal point of view). This is quite normal between neighbors. What is not normal is refusing to talk about it. A deafening silence is what we heard from Greece all these years.
We already have well-established channels to discuss these issues. We also have the guidance of international law. Our discussions with Greece regarding the Aegean disputes go back to the 1970s – just like the “trans-generational” negotiations between Greece and Italy on the delimitation of maritime zones.
One problem is that referring to “Turkish delinquency” when it comes to international law has almost become a mantra in this country. Now that Greece has finally concluded its first EEZ delimitation agreement with one of its neighbors, did you know that we have already successfully finalized all kinds of delimitation agreements with all our neighbors (with countries not necessarily belonging to the same political camp as ourselves) in the Black Sea? On top of that, some of these agreements were made in the middle of the Cold War! Not based on coercion, or threats, or any other means, as the Greek public is led to believe, but based on mutual respect and international law.
Burak Ozugergin says that the recent agreement signed between Greece and Italy on an exclusive economic zone ‘is further proof that international law does not consist of simply drawing median lines, giving full effect to islands and ignoring all other factors.’
You don’t need to read between the lines. Our messages at every level are always open and straightforward. We do not like fait accomplis against us and we do not act in this manner either. We say what we do, and we do what we say.
For example, for years we kept warning the Greek Cypriots (and their regional and other collaborators including Greece) that their unilateral line-drawing attempts in the Eastern Mediterranean were clearly in violation of our rights and those of the Turkish Cypriots. No country can just sit quietly when others are weaving cobwebs which so obviously affect its rights and interests. Especially a country like Turkey, which has the longest coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Our positions on maritime jurisdiction matters always take into account basic principles of the Law of the Sea, as well as the numerous practices and court decisions that together create legal jurisprudence and as such inform international law.
It is true that being a large country does not absolve you from your obligations in the context of international law. International law is for all countries, large or small, but international law in its entirety and in context – taking into account all relevant factors, not only those things that a first-year law student would know. That is why people spend years in law schools and that is why you never stop learning in the practice of law.
Yes. It is indeed possible to have positive developments, once paralyzing convictions can be put to rest and calcified postures can be abandoned. It is never too late for neighbors to not only talk, but also to listen to each other.
Thirty-five years ago, on my entrance exams for the ministry, I was asked what I thought the source of the problem was between Turkey and Greece over the Aegean. I answered that Greece in essence chooses to draw lines in the water and obstinately refuses to talk to us, and that it has made up its mind about what it believes its rights to be without considering what this means for others (I passed the test). Kismet has it that on the occasion of this agreement with the Italians I would see the day that the kind of absolutist thinking informing Greek policy is beginning to evolve. I find it very encouraging that Greece has finally begun to settle long-standing delimitation issues with its neighbors.
It is self-evident that any negotiation process should include an exercise of give-and-take, and public opinion needs to feel comfortable with this fact of life. The cooperation models put forward by the agreement itself, as well as the accompanying documents signed by Greece and Italy, as two European Union members, offer further ideas.
The way I see it, the agreement is further proof that international law does not consist of simply drawing median lines, giving full effect to islands and ignoring all other factors. In fact, international law of the sea is a very complicated field of study. As for third parties, and especially for third parties, I would say that it is not a good idea to volunteer comments when offered a microphone, no matter how confident you feel about the subject. It is precisely because of this that so many lawyers, academics and experts are busy interpreting international law. Otherwise, a ruler would do the job.
In fact, do you think that if maritime delimitation were as simple as drawing a median line between two coasts, with effect given to islands “just like mainland coasts,” the delimitation in the Gulf of Maine between the United States and Canada look like it does today? What would the English Channel look like? Ask our Romanian and Ukrainian friends how they managed to delimit their zones in the Black Sea given the presence of a small island belonging to one party, but curtaining off the coasts of another. So no. Life is not that simple.
As I said before, neighbors cannot and should not avoid dialogue, no matter how difficult it might be. It is not possible to solve disputes if there is no face-to-face dialogue. Pretending to have dialogue but still treating each other as ghosts doesn’t help either.
The agreement with Italy is an excellent example that neighbors should sit face to face – just like their coasts – and iron out the issues between them. That is what international law is there for, once one decides to climb down from one’s supposed high moral walls and start respecting his or her neighbors’ rights. Without interference, without theatrics.
We diplomats don’t like references to “dead ends.” History never ends, it always has a way of reinventing itself.
‘It is true that being a large country does not absolve you from your obligations in the context of international law. International law is for all countries, large or small’
We might indeed have an opening here. But complaining to third parties does not lead to solutions, at least not in our case. Trying to exert pressure with the help of other actors will simply not work. Civilized countries do not solve their issues by screaming from the rooftops. The UN Charter is there; it lists in an almost exhaustive manner all the ways in which disputes can be solved – negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judicial settlement… you name it. We are open to any and all of these methods; let’s use them. Our mantra has always been that delimitation must be just, equitable and peaceful.
Ever since the 60s, there have been plenty of plans and negotiations to find a solution to the Cyprus issue. No stone has been left unturned. All kinds of UN secretaries general, presidents, facilitators and national teams have spent countless accumulated years in the pursuit of a solution. All methods have been exhausted. For decades, all arguments and counter-arguments have been brought to the table. So, it is not from a lack of good people or good ideas that the final solution remains elusive.
It is clearly and squarely because the Greek-Cypriot side does not intend – or cannot bring itself – to share governance and wealth, recognize the political equality and address the security needs of their Turkish-Cypriot counterparts. As Einstein puts it, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We will not allow another 50 years of meandering, procrastination and stalling by the Greek Cypriots while the Turkish Cypriots are kept in a chokehold. There will be no “picking up from where we left off in Crans-Montana,” because where we left off in Crans-Montana was a snapshot of where we had been for all those years. The ball is not in our court.