A “hot incident” took place between the Foreign Minister, Nikos Dendias and the Turkish ambassador to Norway, for the expansion of territorial waters and the casus belli.
In a discussion organized by the Norwegian Institute of International Relations, Mr. Dendias spoke about what is happening in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, presenting maps emphasizing that the Turkey consciously ignores International Law and has been threatening Greece with casus belli since 1995.
“Turkey, with specific criminal actions culminating in the Turkish-Libyan memorandum, chooses to ignore the international law of the sea and has been threatening our country since 1995 with a casus belli,” he said.
Watch from 34.44
At that time, the Turkish ambassador to Norway spoke, who was visibly annoyed and said that Turkey was doing what it was doing in response to “unilateral actions” by Greece, such as the discussion on extending the territorial waters to 12 miles. He added that the casus belli was issued by the Turkish National Assembly, when Greece decided to claim the delimitation of the EEZs and the expansion of its maritime borders.
“You claim that Turkey is doing one thing and doing the other, ignoring one point, that all these actions are in response to something you did. So these are the consequences, the Turkish-Libyan agreement was a consequence of something you know very well. The declaration of casus belli by the Great Turkish National Assembly was also the consequence of the so-called Greece, that it would proceed unilaterally to extend the coastal zone to 12 nautical miles and this would practically lock the Turkish territorial waters, the Turkish ability to approach waters and Turkey would be trapped in its territorial waters. “This is what you are implying or trying to say to Turkey,” the Turkish ambassador said.
And he went on to note – for the first time – that he wants an agreement, but not on the basis of international law. “During the UNCLOS negotiations, Turkey was a staunch opponent of the idea that the islands have exactly the same effect on demarcation, because in the case of the Aegean, the Aegean is impossible to accept. The Aegean Sea is a very specific case and as you said this, one side of the sea should be able to see the other. The demarcation must be done by both. So in the Greek-Turkish issues of the Aegean and the rest of the issues, Turkey is possessed by the desire for an honest dialogue, for their solution through an honest dialogue. I was very happy to note that next week there will probably be a new chapter of discussions, exploratory talks between Turkey and Greece at the level of deputy ministers. We look forward to resolving all these issues through dialogue. The Aegean has two coasts. There is a land mass on the other side that you forget called Asia Minor, you may remember it from history and it is the land mass of the Asian continent that you would like to ignore completely that the island has the same effect on land mass as the land. of Turkey. Of course, this is impossible for us to accept. This is the starting point we say you are ready to speak to Turkey on the basis of UNCLOS. Turkey did not take part in Unclos and we can not accept the situation in the Aegean as a solution. So we can not do this dialogue solely on the basis of UNCLOS. ” As the professor said, International Law can be one of the bases for resolution and the others are, justice, equality and mutual rights. If you are ready to accept or take into account the Turkish issues, the Turkish rights and the Turkish needs in this matter, we can always talk and sit down to discuss, to solve these problems. You have failed to highlight the demilitarized status of some islands. This is one of the topics we would like to discuss. It is about international law and its application. “I think that according to international law, agreements are part of international law, direct agreements, the Treaty of Lausanne and the Treaty of Paris oblige you not to militarize some islands,” he said.
Mr. Dendias’s answer was particularly harsh, explaining that what he described was the reality in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, and that nowhere in the world is there a corresponding casus belli from one state to another.
“Who says that because I have not co-signed UNCLOS, if you implement UNCLOS it is a threat of war against you and nothing else. Because that’s what I want. Is this a reasonable contact to do things in the 21st century? Is this really an invitation to dialogue or is it a genuine threat? I could use harsher words than the real threat. So, the threats between Greece and Turkey are solvable, under one condition: that Turkey will come in the 21st century. If Turkey remains in the 19th century, if Turkey insists on the way Suleiman the Magnificent settled affairs, having the armades then this is not acceptable. In my humble opinion, there is a possibility that Turkey will change its ways of understanding. I strongly believe that this will also benefit Turkish society. “There would be a huge dynamic if this issue was resolved,” he said.
He went on to stress that “the Turkish Ambassador said that the Turkish-Libyan memorandum was a reaction to our action. He did not reveal which one. But the question is, can an illegal reaction be accepted? The normal answer to this is: no mistakes. The Turkish-Libyan memorandum is a legal agreement. I heard that this is a reaction to something, no one on earth can defend this agreement on legal ground. “The point of legitimacy is the same as concluding an agreement with Singapore.”
Earlier, the Foreign Minister had responded to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regarding Turkey’s constant request for the demilitarization of the Aegean islands.
“Ankara raises the issue of demilitarization at a time when NATO must show unity in protecting the integrity of a country like Ukraine,” he said.
Follow Skai.gr on Google News
and be the first to know all the news
