Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis appeared optimistic about the immediate launch of Greece -Libya’s debate on the designation of EEZ, at the level of technical scales. He described a very well -founded case for the possibility of starting in October and stressed that the relationship with Libya could be further upgraded.

Mr Gerapetritis said he has not yet been determined by a date for the meeting of Mitsotakis and Erdogan in New York, but he hopes, but that the right time will be found and that will not be ceremonialBut, all the current issues will be discussed.

He expressed the assessment that there is no risk of creating a crisis in the two countries’ relations and stressed that as far as it concerns Limensions of marine zones‘If Turkey considers there is a disagreement between the two countries, There is the road to the International Court of Justice”

Finally, in a question about Mr Mitsotakis’ opening to Mr Samaras and the possibility of ND’s re -establishment with the former prime minister, he replied: “I particularly respect Mr Samaras, his contribution to the country and his course in ND. I think, because foreign policy is a matter of events and not cases and speculations, I have the feeling that with Mr Samaras there could be a debate that would be productive. On the other hand, I would like to emphasize that national issues are not offered for a digestible approach. Criticism should always be done on the basis of arguments, which refer to the field and not the theory. “

In detail the statements of G. Gerapetritis to SKAI

Mitsotakis – Erdogan

There is an intention of both to have the meeting, we try to find the right time, because planning is not easy, the two speeches of the two at the General Assembly do not coincide. But I hope that there will be the right timing to have a meeting. It will not obviously be ceremonial, there are always discussion issues that are of the current, which are arising. As we have said, there is a specific context of dialogue with Turkey. Political dialogue, positive agenda, MOE. By recognizing our differences, our underlying differences, we can discuss so as not to produce crises. The truth is that in the last year we have had many important events that have happened and which form another framework. I feel crucial and necessary for the leaders of two countries with timeless problems to meet and try to maintain communication channels.

Turkey

Turkey reacts and is reasonable, it has its own perception of its claims in the Eastern Mediterranean. We will insist on something we have said from the beginning: Greece will never discuss issues of sovereignty and will not make any concessions. Yes in dialogue, yes in the spirit of consultation but not in concessions. We are upgrading our position, we are not going to be overwhelmed by the fact that others are claiming claims. The same is true of Libyan claims. Nevertheless we have a stable policy. We do not feel a crisis and there is always the path of international law that is international jurisdiction. If Turkey considers that there is a disagreement between the two countries in terms of maritime zone boundaries, there is the path to the international court.

Libya

We will have a very immediate immediate start of the technical committees’ discussions on the demarcation of the maritime zones. The discussions are already in progress in October. We have a good and functional relationship with Libya that can be upgraded.

Saddler

I particularly respect Mr Samaras, his contribution to the country and his course in ND. It has a different approach to national issues, I am convinced that if we sit down and discuss these issues, which we were with Turkey 2 years ago and we are in the field today, in the arguments, we were two years ago with Turkey and who we are today, we were with Libya, Concerning, but on the contrary, the country’s international footprint today is more powerful than ever. And in this I think the recent evolution with Chevron certifies the fact that we have an excellent relationship, despite the opposite legend, with the US. I think, because foreign policy is a matter of events and not cases and speculations, I have the feeling that with Mr Samaras there could be a debate that would be productive. On the other hand, I would like to emphasize that national issues are not offered for a digestible approach. Criticism should always be done on the basis of arguments, which refer to the field and not the theory.