Blog

Greek-Turkish: "And what do you want us to do, war?"

From  Military News

According to UNCLOS, both Territorial Waters and the EEZ start from the baselines. Airspace and the Contiguous Zone depend on the territorial waters.

Written by  OTHON FLORATOS*

Regarding the Continental Shelf, we need to finally get rid of this term before we suffer irreversible damage. The continental shelf concerns the seabed and its subsoil and according to UNCLOS article 76, it may or may not reach 200 nm. In paragraph 5 of this article, it is stated that the continental shelf cannot exceed 100 nm from the isobath of 2500 m. While it can reach 350 nm.

Turkey does not come unread, it is based on the case law of the Hague court of 1978, on the delimitation of the continental shelf between France and the United Kingdom, regarding the Channel Islands.

There, France said that the English islands sit on its own continental shelf (exactly what Turkey also says).

The United Kingdom argued that since its islands have territorial waters based on the median line, they also have a continental shelf underlying the territorial waters (which Greece also says in its argument).

The Hague court ruled in favor of France, taking into account the morphology of the seabed and not the territorial waters, which it released from the continental shelf.

With the new international law of 1982, article 74, the concept of the EEZ was introduced, which is determined only by the distance of 200 nm from the baselines that also define territorial waters.

If the distance between two coasts of states is less than 400 nm, then the median line is taken into account.

In addition, all inhabited islands are entitled to an EEZ and a continental shelf (article 121), but as I mentioned above, the continental shelf is more complex to delimit than the EEZ.

Given that the EEZ grants rights to the sea, the seabed and the subsoil of the seabed based solely on distance and according to the case law of the Hague court, it is a national crime to still talk about a continental shelf.

Also, the new international law has established a special court for disputes over UNCLOS, based in Hamburg. The Hague court is not excluded, but comes second (Article 287).

Our obsession with the Hague court is a concession to Turkey, which, by not recognizing UNCLOS, obviously does not recognize the substantively competent court in Hamburg.

The resolution of disputes even with states that have not signed UNCLOS is provided for “mutatis mutandis” in Article 284.

In Greek, this is translated as the principle of equity or proportionality, but in English legal terminology, the term is translated as: taking into account the differences. For cases where there are disagreements from neighboring countries, UNCLOS provides for recourse to international arbitration, even unilaterally, in the event that the other side refuses or does not respond to a written invitation within a prescribed period.

It is also explicitly stated that the provisions of UNCLOS are binding even for countries that have not signed the treaty.

Given that UNCLOS stipulates that bilateral or multilateral agreements prevail over it (which is why Turkey is trying to lure us into a bilateral agreement).

The idea that we can negotiate a variety of territorial waters is an unacceptable concession to Turkey and is a monstrously arbitrary interpretation of UNCLOS, which, when referring to territorial waters, says “up to 12 nm” meaning the median line, where distances are less than 24 nm, as it does for the analogous case of the EEZ. In no way does UNCLOS refer to the possibility of arbitrarily choosing the width of territorial waters as they please.

The drones are targeting our positions and giving coordinates to the Turkish artillery. If we continue to let them, the Turks are institutionalizing situations of contestation of the areas they fly over, creating a fait accompli.

If, on the contrary, we shoot them down, after an appropriate international NOTAM warning, which I mention below, the deterrent message is sent very clearly.

The Turks shot down a Russian plane for an 18-second violation and didn't even think about the possibility of World War III.

The constant references to accidents and incidents do not help, but on the contrary convince Turkey that there is no will for a substantive response to its actions and embolden it.

Turkish politics is timeless and goes back to 1921, with the National Oath to take back the territories lost by the Ottoman Empire.

Today's Turkish propaganda is reminiscent of the "border incidents" invented by the Italians to justify their invasion in 1940.

Greece MUST finally stop coughing, because it is not enough to have weapons systems for parades, but the enemy must know that they also have the will to use them, something in which we are unfortunately lagging behind since 1996, when on the night of Imia, faced with the choice of Fire or Back, we backed down.

The continuation, to date, has not shown that anything has changed in our choices for ensuring reliable deterrence, no matter what the former Chiefs of Staff of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff say from time to time. The Turks know very well that if the Prime Minister does not approve, we will not even drop a barrel.

Beyond that, Turkey has elections in which, according to the polls, Erdogan is losing so far. If he loses with what he has done, he will probably follow Menderes's fate and he knows it. So he has nothing to lose by trying to achieve a spectacular victory that would change things at home.

The bad thing is that the Opposition, with everything it has said, will probably turn out to be worse than Erdogan.

Greece should immediately prepare for the worst, because if we don't wake up ourselves from our excessive "coolness", others will wake us up.

The talk of staying calm and "we won't fall into the trap" are naive statements that the Turks perceive as fear.

We are in a trap: The Greek obsession with stupidities, which we call responsibility, will lead us, through the increasing Turkish provocations, to be responsible for whatever reaction we are forced to make, and then Turkey will come out on top in NATO and elsewhere.

On the contrary, the lack of a serious Greek reaction secures a fait accompli for Turkey regarding the areas it disputes and passes on internationally the perception of disputed areas that should be settled through bilateral negotiations.

In essence, we are led to negotiate what we will give and what our neighbors will leave us, through their demands and blackmail and our own supposed composure and self-restraint.

At this point, we need moves that will give us the initiative to take action, directly targeting Turkish threats and blackmail, but will also send a very clear message to Turkey that we are not in 1996.

For this purpose, IT IS REQUIRED:

1. It should be made clear to every "well-wisher" who serves us the candy of dialogue that Turkey's refusal to recognize International Law and the continuous promotion of unilateral, arbitrary and unfounded claims do not constitute a Greek-Turkish difference and under no circumstances can it be a matter of negotiation between Greece and Turkey.
2. It should be made clear that there cannot be any discussion with Turkey under a fait accompli, blackmail, questioning of Greece's territorial integrity and the threat of war in the event that Greece exercises its rights under International Law.
3. A verbal notice should be given to NATO immediately that Greece is released from its obligations, based on Article 5, towards Turkey for as long as CASUS BELLI is in effect, given that an ally is not allowed to threaten an ally with war.

Furthermore, it must be clarified that in the event of a Turkish attack against us, Greece will be REQUIRED to activate Article 5, given that Turkey will have placed itself DE FACTO outside the Alliance.

What nonsense is this sweet talk we hear about the Alliance not providing for conflict resolution between its members?

If there is a military attack, there is no alliance, because the AGGRESSOR obviously places himself OUTSIDE the alliance.

After we definitively clarify our position in NATO, then we should unilaterally implement everything provided for by UNCLOS and if the Turks want, let them be the first to attack a NATO country.

Let's finally see the current value of this alliance for us.

4. Immediately unilaterally delineate and declare (not delimit) an EEZ based on the median line, as stated in UNCLOS, and provide the UN with the relevant coordinates in order to secure our rights in the EEZ.

A potential EEZ is not foreseen anywhere, unless it has been declared.

5. A NOTAM should be issued stating that aircraft that violate the Athens FIR and do not comply with the instructions, but seek to engage, will be designated as RENEGADES and will be treated in accordance with the international provisions for such cases, while unmanned aircraft that are a potential threat to aviation will be shot down.
6. A verbal statement should be given to the UN that in view of Turkish threats and unilateral claims, in violation of every concept of International Law, that if there is any action by Turkey that will be perceived as a threat to the territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Greece, then we reserve the right to take every available measure, diplomatic or otherwise, on the basis of the right of self-defense, to neutralize the threat.
7. An EEZ agreement with Cyprus should be reached immediately, in order to subsequently facilitate the completion of the relevant agreement with Egypt.

Enough of the stupidities that first-year political science students wouldn't do and that some people think are smart and responsible politics, with which we are constantly losing through a salami-style concessions, for decades now.

"What do you want us to do with war?" was the answer Churchill gave to Chamberlain on the day he took office as prime minister, after the latter's resignation.

He said: “Between War and Humiliation, you chose Humiliation and brought War.”

Greece must claim what it is LEGALLY entitled to, based on International Law, and not appear fearful and unwilling to negotiate its rights for fear of losing them.

*B.Sc. Mechanical Engineer

Doctor of NTUA