Editor's Note:
Many people in Turkiye feel that Turkish government
in 1923 was obliged to accept the conditions of the
Lausanne Treaty because there was little room to
manoeuvre during the aftermath of the collapse of
Ottoman Empire and ensuing War of Independence
fought against the aggressive Greek enemy
supported by the Super Powers of the day.
The Lausanne Treaty gave the Aegean islands to
Italy which, in turn, handed them over to Greece
in 1947 Paris Treaty. The hand over was done on the
assumption that the territorial waters would have
a breadth of 3 miles and they would be free of any
military installations.
Greece unilaterally increased the breadth of
her territorial waters from 3 to 6 miles and
embarked upon establishing military bases on the
islands in direct contrast with international agreements.
Greece is now seeking to increase her territorial
waters to 12 miles which Turkiye vehemently rejects
and considers a reason for war with Greece.
Even the current geography depicted in the maps
is not acceptable to anyone with common sense as
it gives 43.5% of the Aegean to Greece, leaving
only 7.5% to Turkiye, remaining 49% being high
seas. According to many Turks, this situation itself
should be considered a reason for armed conflict
but the current status of regional politics prevent
Turkish governments from taking the ultimate step.
Still many Turkish citizens find it difficult to
understand the seemingly unlimited Turkish patience
in the face of the endless Greek violations in the
Aegean. The world public remembers only too well the
instant intervention of the US administration in
Cuba, Panama, Granada, Iraq and Libya on the
pretext of "national interests". These "operations"
were sometimes carried out on the other side of the
world. Yet Turkiye sits idle and quotes international
agreements while tiny Greece invades the Aegean inch
by inch, dealing blows to our national interests in
every step.
Turkiye and Greece being the two littoral states have legitimate rights and interests in the Aegean Sea. These involve their security, economy and other traditional rights recognised by international law.
Turkish-Greek differences over the Aegean are related to the Aegean status quo established by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. The Lausanne Treaty established a political balance between Greece and Turkiye by harmonising the vital interests of both countries including those in the Aegean.
Turkiye fully respects the provisions of Lausanne and in return expects Greece to act in the same manner. It is true that in 1923, the continental shelf concept was not foreseen. Nevertheless, the inherent balance of the Lausanne Treaty in the Aegean is a guideline in all respects, including the continental shelf. The basic thinking of the Lausanne Treaty is, to grant to coastal States limited areas of maritime jurisdiction and leave the remaining parts of the Aegean to the common benefit of Turkiye and Greece. It is clear that if one of the littoral States unilaterally extends its jurisdiction in the Aegean and deprives the other coastal State from exercising its existing rights, it is no longer possible to speak of the Lausanne balance in the Aegean.
Consequently, the bilateral Turco-Greek relationship in the Aegean has to be based on the following principles:
The fundamental source of tension between Turkiye and Greece is the Greek perception to regard the entire Aegean as a Greek sea in total disregard of Turkiye's rights and interests as one of the coastal states (see accompanying maps). Turkish policy is based on respect for the status quo whereas Greece appears determined to alter it in its favour.
The threat of extending Greek territorial waters beyond their present width of 6 miles (Greece extended her territorial waters from 3 miles to 6 miles in 1936,Turkiye followed suit in 1964), the remilitarisation of the Eastern Aegean Islands placed under demilitarised status by virtue of the very agreements ceding them to Greece, 10 mile air space over territorial waters of 6 miles, abuse of the FIR responsibility as if it confers sovereignty (request of flight plans from state aircraft and allegations of "violations of" Athens FIR) can be counted among these efforts which are the real underlying causes of the Turco-Greek conflict.
The issue of the Continental Shelf has in the past led to tensions between Turkiye and Greece. After years of friction between the two countries, Turkiye and Greece signed the 1976 Bern Agreement. Under the terms of this Agreement, the two governments have, inter alia, assumed the obligation to refrain from any initiative or act concerning the Aegean continental shelf. This specific obligation was observed by both countries over several years and thus it was possible to avert the dispute concerning the Aegean continental shelf from escalating into tensions and confrontations.
However Greece, who terminated the negotiating process with Turkiye in 1981, started seismic and related activities and planned drilling operations in the disputed areas of the Aegean continental shelf in 1981.These activities which were open violations of the Bern Agreement have formed the main cause of the March 1987 crisis between Turkiye and Greece. This crisis over drilling beyond territorial waters, was in fact the culmination of unilateral actions perpetrated by Greece as regards the Aegean. The crisis was averted and the "Davos Process", leading to meetings between Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers was initiated. The process however yielded no tangible results on the major issues, due mainly to Greek insistence that the Agenda of the negotiations could contain no reference to the Aegean issues.
Under the present 6 mile limit, Greek territorial sea comprises approximately 43.5 percent of the Aegan sea. For Turkiye the same percentage is 7.5 percent. The remaining 49 percent is high seas.
It is evident that the extension by Greece of her territorial waters beyond the present 6 miles in the Aegean, would have most inequitable implications and would, therefore, constitute an abuse of right.
If the breadth of Greek territorial waters is extended to 12 miles, due to the existence of the islands, Greece would acquire approximately 71.5 percent of the Aegean Sea, while Turkiye's share would increase to only 8.8 percent. The Aegean high seas would diminish to 19.7 percent. The impact of such a Greek extension of its territorial waters would be to deprive Turkiye, one of the two coastal states of the Aegean, from her basic right of access to high seas from her territorial waters, the economic benefits derived from the Aegean, scientific research, etc. Any increase beyond 6 miles is totally unacceptable to Turkiye.
Half of the Aegean airspace is international airspace. The two littoral states, Greece and Turkiye, have freely used this area under the provisions and procedures of international law. International airspace over the high seas is not under the sovereignty of any nation.
According to international law, the breadth of national airspace has to correspond to the breadth of territorial sea. This is clearly reflected in Articles 1 and 2 the Chicago Convention of 1944 on civil aviation.
The core of the conflict on the Aegean airspace is the persistent abuse of "Flight Information Region" responsibility by Greece as if this responsibility entails sovereign rights. The FIR arrangement on the Aegean Airspace devised in 1952 within the framework of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), is a technical responsibility. Greece, however, is using it to further its claims of de facto sovereignty over the Aegean airspace by demanding flight plans from Turkish state aircraft and allegations of "infringements of the Athens FIR". Besides the abuse of its FIR responsibility, Greece claims a 10 nautical mile national airspace over territorial waters of 6 nautical miles. This arbitrary claim is a Greek attempt to reduce the international airspace of the Aegean by 50 percent.
However, Greece has been violating the demilitarised status of the islands in contravention of her contractual obligations since the 1960's and has admitted a military presence on some of these Islands since the 1970's.
Turkiye formally raised the issue of the illegal military activities on the islands as early as mid- 60's and protested these violations of Greek obligation to keep the islands demilitarised. Contrary to the status of Eastern Aegean islands, the Turkish territories including the Aegean Region is not under such a demilitarised status.
On the other hand, the recent deployment of EXOCET guided missile batteries which are offensive weapons on islands under demilitarised status is a further example of blatant violation of existing international agreements.
The recent crisis over the Kardak rocks has erupted by coincidence in such an atmosphere when Greece was making announcements for recruitment of potential settlers from all over the world to some of these small islets and rocks. It is obvious that such a recruitment and settlement effort is in total disregard of the environmental concerns and the fragility of the ecosystems of the small islands and rocks in the Aegean. In addition, it is yet another proof of Greece's thirst for territorial expansion beyond areas ceded to her by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947.
The Kardak rocks lie just 3.8 nautical miles off the Turkish coast. The title deed of the rocks is registered on the Karakaya village of Bodrum prefecture, Mugla province. For years Turkish fishermen have engaged in fishing activities on and around these rocks without any hindrance and Turkish vessels have navigated freely through the waters surrounding them. The series of events started by pure coincidence with the running aground of a Turkish bulk carrier named "Figen Akat" near these rocks on 25 December 1995.
In the following weeks there was no crisis. It all changed on 20 January 1996, nearly a month later, when the incident was leaked into the Greek periodical "GRAMMA" which is known to be close to the Greek Government. This leak took place only the day after Mr.Simitis was named to form the new Greek Government. A media campaign was launched by the Greek press with nationalistic overtones.
Then the Mayor of Kalimnos, a Greek island 5.5 nautical miles away from the Kardak rocks took upon himself to come to the rocks on 26 January and raise the Greek flag. Incidentally, the Greek flag had never been hoisted on the Kardak rocks before. In spite of this provocative action, the official Turkish reaction was very moderate. However, some Turkish journalists, no doubt concerned primarily with the circulation of their paper, hoisted the Turkish flag over Kardak the next day. This flag hoisting competition by individuals could have been considered innocent, had not the Greek side taken a decision to send troops to the Kardak rocks. This was an act of aggression or armed hostility against Turkish sovereignty. In the assessment of the crisis, one should never lose sight of this illegal Greek deployment on the Kardak rocks.
Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads as follows; "Every Treaty or International Engagement entered into hereinafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such Treaty or International Engagement shall be binding until so registered." Therefore, no legally binding document exists in this respect.
That Italy has approached the Turkish Government in 1937 raising the issue of ratification of the 28 December 1932 document is an additional indication against its validity. This Italian demarche was never responded to and no such action was ever taken.
The Greek proposal submitted during the negotiations of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty to make a reference to the 1932 two documents was not accepted, and no such reference was included in the text of the Treaty.
The fact that Greece has approached the Turkish Government in 1950 and yet again in 1953 proposing talks with a view to exchanging letters between the two Governments ascertaining the validity of the above-mentioned two documents between Turkiye and Greece shows that Greece also had doubts as to their validity.
The only document that may be referred to regarding the sovereignty of Dodecanese islands, as already been pointed out, is the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. This Treaty in its Article 14 enumerates those islands to be transferred to Greek sovereignty one by one. Kardak, is not mentioned among these. The Kardak formations are not "islets" but two rocks. They lie 5.5 miles away from the nearest Dodecanese island. Therefore they do not fit into the definition of "adjacent islets" as stipulated by the Article 14 of the said Treaty.
In addition this Article also envisages a demilitarised statues for the Dodecanese Islands. Greece has been blatantly violating this demilitarised status since the mid 1960's. The treaty has established a direct link between sovereignty of Dodecanese islands that are so close to the Turkish mainland and their demilitarised status, taking into consideration the security requirements of Turkiye. A similar arrangement has been also stipulated by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty concerning the North Eastern Aegean islands. Their demilitarised status is also being violated by Greece. This issue is one of the main disputes between Greece and Turkiye.
For ease of reference the text of the Article 14 of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty is quoted hereafter.
"1-Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodacanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Niyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.
2-These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarised."