Blog

A response to Professor Alexis Iraklides' incredible article on Greek-Turkish

In a recent article in the “Editors’ Journal,” renowned academic Alexis Iraklidis criticizes the Greek government for its decision to strengthen the country’s military capabilities. He cites not only the economic cost, but, as he states, because it will contribute to the rise of nationalism.

Of Zacharias B. Micha
(Director of Studies at the Institute for Security and Defense Analyses – ISDA/IAAA)

In his own logic, the continued strengthening of Turkish military capabilities, the blatant exacerbation of the dominant nationalist tendencies in the neighboring country, and the blunt direct threats against Greece are not a problem! The problem is that Greece is trying to maintain a balance.

Heraklides criticizes the decision to strengthen the Greek deterrent strategy, considering that Greece is pursuing a policy of coercion towards Turkey! Beyond the obvious deficits in understanding the strategic terminology regarding deterrence-coercion bipolar, poses the following question: Is Turkey revisionist and expansionist at the expense of Greece?

According to Heraclides, there are four points in which he believes that Athens' politics suffers:
First, accuses it of relying on the worst possible scenario, while our long-term coexistence with the Turks We must hope for the best scenario! Every serious state, however, can hope for the optimistic version of historical events, but it prepares for the worst! That is why it maintains armed forces.

Secondly, accuses Athens of torpedoing exploratory talks on the Aegean. However, it was Ankara that stopped the exploratory work in early 2016, not Athens. And recently it was Ankara that delayed setting a date for the final round. Despite the actual Turkish provocations of 2020, Greece went to the exploratory talks unconditionally, although he had every reason to set conditions.

Thirdly, accuses Athens of raising the stakes excessively, without having exhausted all means for de-escalation and settlement. Greece, even when it rarely raises its stakes it does so in reaction to actual violations of its sovereign rights on behalf of the Turks. It is simply ridiculous for the professor to claim that the military reinforcement of Greece, after more than a decade of inaction, undermines the climate of understanding and threatens Turkey(!), when Turkey has been constantly arming itself all this time.

fourth, accuses Athens of acting on the logic of coercing Turkey as if it were a "maladaptive child." He even adds that the Turks, known for their pride they will never accept, especially because coercion comes from a smaller country (Greece) which has also chosen to ally with their enemies (Israel, Republic of Cyprus), their rivals (France, Haftar in Libya), or those it does not trust (Egypt, Biden's USA).

As unthinkable as it may seem, Heraclides recognizes the Turkish people's right to pride, but not the GreeksHence, he characterizes as nationalists all those in Greece who are not willing to concede to Turkey sovereign rights, as well as territory, which according to international treaties and international law belong to Greece.

He even makes a highly inappropriate statement, saying that Greece is a small country, so it must adapt to the big and powerful Turkey! His position is not consistent with international law, but fits perfectly with approaches that flourished in central and northern Europe in the interwar period.

Then he quotes six points about how Turkey sees Greece and bilateral issues, reproducing the entire Turkish argumentThe Turks do not consider their country to be revisionist towards Greece, while the Greeks are concerned about the “Big Idea” and even to the detriment of Turkey.

You have so many contacts with Turks, Mr. Iraklides, have you not managed to convince them that this claim is pure gibberish? The Turks suffer from the “terror of shrinkage and dismemberment,” he states below. Is it Greece’s job, however, to “cure” the Turks?

And to do this, in fact conceding to Turkey the Greek islets and the Greek sovereign rights it claims? If Ankara believes it is right, why doesn't it agree? to submit its claims to the International Court of Justice The Hague? Greece has recognized its jurisdiction, Turkey has not.

If Heraclides believes that international law must change to adapt to Turkish wishes, let him tell us so that he can at least be honest. The same applies to the Turkish accusation that Greece wants to turn the Aegean into a Greek lake. The Aegean Sea is no one's lake. Greece and Turkey have coastlines on this and the rights arising from international lawEverything else is Turkish propaganda that Heraklides is chewing over.

The professor fully accepts the Turkish position on the demilitarization of the Greek islands of the eastern Aegean. It makes no mention of the Turkish army in the Aegean, nor of the landing fleet. which charters the Asia Minor coasts opposite the Greek islands. Nor, of course, in the threats of Turkish occupation of these islandsIf Heraklides believes that the Greek forces present there are threatening Turkey with a landing(!), let him state it directly so that his Turkish friends can burst out laughing too. The magnitude of the absurdity does not allow for serious discussion.

At the same time that Heraklides considers the militarization for the defense of the Greek islands a threat to Turkey, he considers that "The famous casus belli is not a real threat of using armed force."! But the Turks themselves, Professor, in the most official way, by decision of their National Assembly, declare to us that it is a threat of war. Like another Procrustes, Heraclides cuts and stretches the facts in order to adapt them to the his/her obsessive bedLet us note that we adopt the interpretation of his attitude that is most favorable to him.

Heraklides accuses Athens of "seeking the lion's share in the Eastern Mediterranean, with the aim of prevailing in the region, with even the remote and tiny Kastellorizo ​​as a base." It is difficult for him to understand that The path to the International Court of Justice is open, so that any influence this island complex has can be judged. on the continental shelf-EEZ? Since he is in favor of a peaceful settlement, why doesn't he recommend this path to his Turkish friends? Greece is clear that it will accept any decision from The Hague.

Heraklides does not deviate from the national position on any issue. Essentially, he is the overall propagandist of Turkish claims. If he wants to be honest with himself, let him say what he proposes by name. What is he actually asking for? He is asking Greece not only to cede islets and sovereign rights, but to essentially turn into a satellite country of Turkey. How can the neo-Ottomans not drink water in his name?