Greece’s unique position at the junction of civilization and three major continents has both historically and currently provides Greece with exceptional strategic importance in international affairs. Its location along the Mediterranean and its proximity to the Black sea has made it essential in the transportation of communications from the Middle East to Europe. This importance has played a crucial role in its foreign policies.
The eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire gave birth to many new neighbors, and local disputes, for Greece (which won its independence from the Ottomans in 1830). The current Greek borders the outcome of the treaty of Lausanne reached with the newly founded Turkish Republic in 1923, and post- World War II Treaty of Paris which provided the transfer from Italy to Greece of the Dodecanese islands.
The Aegean Sea disputes
Although both Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952, they have had different perceptions of their security interests. In Greece the general perception has been that since 1974 Turkey wanted to change the Aegean status quo in a manner which would include Greece’s Eastern Aegean islands into Turkish 8 zones of functional responsibility (continental shelf, Flight Information Region, sea and rescue responsibilities, NATO command responsibilities etc.). These goals, coupled with Turkish demands for the demilitarization of the islands facing Turkey – which have been militarized after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus – were deemed by Greece as evidence of a policy aimed at undermining Greek sovereignty over the aforementioned islands.
Moreover, the non-recognition by Turkey of the 10-mile limit of Greek airspace and the Turkish position that the expansion of the Greek territorial sea from 6 to 12 miles (in accordance with the UN Law of the Sea Convention) would constitute a casus belli, were perceived in Greece as evidence of Turkish aggressiveness. It may also be recalled that in 1976 and 1987 Greek-Turkish disputes over the continental shelf and, in January 1996, the short-lived Turkish occupation of an uninhabited islet of the Imia group, came close to triggering a war between the two countries. Furthermore, air warfare over the Aegean (involving overflights of Greek islands by Turkish aircraft and frequent dog-fights with sophisticated aircraft between the two NATO allies) carried serious risks of escalation.
Relations with Turkey have drastically improved following the adoption of the joint declaration by Foreign Ministers George Papandreou and Ismail Cem, issued on the occasion of the NATO Summit held in Madrid on 8 July 1997. The declaration embodied the following commitments:
– Mutual commitment to peace, security and the continuing development of good neighborly relations
– Respect of each other’s sovereignty
– Respect of principles of international law and international agreements
– Respect for each other’s legitimate vital interests and concerns which are of great importance for each country’s security
– Commitment to refrain from unilateral acts – Commitment to settle disputes by peaceful means.
A brief evaluation of the declaration would take note that the commitment concerning the respect of principles of international law and international agreements did not add much to the fact that Turkey was among the very few countries in the world which had not ratified and hence was not bound by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; nevertheless, some of the rules 9 embodied in the Convention, including the 12 mile limit of the territorial sea and the “right” of islands to a continental shelf have evolved into principles of customary international law, binding on the members of the international community. The reference to the “legitimate vital interests and concerns” was seen as a concession to Turkey, as well as the fact that the commitment to settle disputes by peaceful means did not specify recourse to the International Court of Justice.
In the summer of 1999, a few weeks after the launching of negotiations aimed at promoting good neighborliness and functional cooperation, Turkey and Greece were successively hit by catastrophic earthquakes. The unprecedented solidarity demonstrated by the peoples of the two countries paved the way to a fundamental reassessment of the relationship in the two capitals. Important bilateral agreements were signed in February 2000 and committees were established to promote cooperation in various fields. Confidence-building measures agreed in the past were finally being implemented and new measures were discussed in the NATO framework. Moreover, the Greek position on EU Turkish relations changed dramatically, as explained below.
The Cyprus Conflict
Much of the current tensions between Greece and Turkey
The Cyprus conflict remains the main cause of friction between Greece and Turkey. Before Cyprus’s independence in 1960, Greek-Cypriot demands for Enosis (union with Greece) poisoned Greek-Turkish relations and led in September 1955 to an orchestrated uprising against the large Greek community in Istanbul; its existence had been guaranteed by the Lausanne Convention on Minorities but following the aforementioned events the community was reduced to less than 3.000 members. In July 1974, a military coup against the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, served as a pretext for the Turkish invasion and occupation of 36% of the territory of the Republic (in which the Turkish Cypriots represented only 18% of the population, the rest being almost exclusively Greek-Cypriots). The invasion resulted in the displacement of 200.000 Greek Cypriots from the North to the South, subsequently replaced by more than 100.000 settlers from Turkey.
A just settlement of the Cyprus issue, based on a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, as agreed at the 1977 and 1979 summits between the Greek Cypriot 10 and Turkish Cypriot leaders – and further outlined by UN mediators in various plans specifying the structure of the federation, the territorial adjustments, the fate of displaced persons and Turkish settlers and the demilitarization of the island – could provide the basis for resolving the long-lasting conflict.
Involvement of the EU in Greek- Turkish disputes
Belonging to the European Community was perceived as a valuable deterrent when Greece submitted its application for membership in 1975. Greece has since benefited from its participation in EC / EU policy-making but has had trouble convincing its partners to contribute to the settlement of Greek-Turkish disputes. The aforementioned involvement actually started with a dispute that is was not Greek-Turkish as such, the Cyprus conflict. EU partners displayed solidarity on this issue, insofar as it was related to international law, by refusing to recognise in November 1983 the unilateral declaration of independence of the territories occupied by Turkey under the name “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. The Association agreement with the internationally recognized Republic evolved into a Customs Union, preparing the ground for full accession to the EU, which finally took place in May 2004, together with that of nine other European countries.
Greek foreign policy came, however, many times at odds with EU policy on Turkey. Greece’s opposition to the Customs Union Agreement with Turkey was lifted on 6 March 1995, after Greece secured a promise by the Council that accession negotiations with Cyprus would start six months later. Greece’s European partners, most of which were members of NATO, have been reluctant to support Greece in cases of direct confrontation between this country and Turkey. Nevertheless, in the dispute over the uninhabited Imia islets in 1996 the Council of Ministers called on Turkey to refer its claim to the International Court of Justice and later refused to include Turkey among the countries eligible for EU membership on the grounds that this country did not meet the political requirements, including acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Turkish Accession to the EU
Although Greece was long perceived by Turkey as a country conspiring to achieve its permanent exclusion from Europe, in the course of 1997 Turkey realised that the main obstacle to its accession was German opposition, reflected in public statements by prominent members of the Christian Democratic Party. At that time, the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister Theodore Pangalos made an important step, acknowledging publicly that Turkey is part of Europe from a historical viewpoint. A few months later, Prime Minister Constantine Simitis declared before the Greek Parliament that “we support the European perspective of Turkey, on condition that this country complies with the European “acquis”, which included respect of human rights, as specified in the EU Treaty following the Amsterdam amendments.
As a result of the fundamental reassessment of Greek-Turkish relations following the earthquakes that hit the two countries in 1999 (see above), Greece lifted its objections to EU financial assistance to Turkey, part of which was redirected to serve the reconstruction efforts in the area affected by the earthquakes. Moreover, at the Helsinki Summit of the EU in December 1999, Greece agreed to the inclusion of Turkey among the candidates for EU membership, following the adoption of a statement calling on Turkey to submit its claims against its neighbors to the International Court of Justice. Accession negotiations started in October 2005 after the Commission had established that Turkey had fulfilled in essence the criteria for EU membership, known as the Copenhagen summit criteria.
George Papandreou, the Greek Foreign Minister who inaugurated the post-earthquake diplomacy, repeatedly described his vision of a “European Turkey”, in good relations with Greece; Turkish accession to the EU, was not a too distant prospect if Turkey decided to make the necessary adjustments. Turkish membership would entail among other things a common citizenship and, perhaps, a common currency between the two neighbours. This could open a new era of partnerships in business, civil society etc., over and above the substantial trade taking place between the two countries as a result of the Customs Union.
In the past decade, the Greco-Turkish disputes have been reviewed by a technical committee at the level of Ambassadors. To these disputes another was recently added regarding Greek and Turkish claims to an exclusive 12 economic zone in the Eastern Mediterranean, related to the gas potential of its seabed. It would seem, however, that as long as there is self-restraint on the two sides, the normalization process will not be affected and further progress can be made under the guidance of the High-Level Cooperation Council co-chaired by the Prime Ministers of the two countries.
Conclusion
The last two centuries have seen the creation and consolidation of national identities throughout the world, and in particular Europe. Through this reshaping of political landscapes, certain antagonistic opinions