The sea may be blue, but the location is grey. Such is the uncertainty regarding the delineation of Greece's and Turkey's continental shelf and the ownership of the islands of the eastern Mediterranean, that war is averted only because no one can be sure who should go to war with whom. The same treaties, giving ownership to Greece, which Turkey seeks to rescind, actually bedevil both peace and war.
Turkish fighter jets regularly invade Greek air space and, with Greek planes provoked to engage in dog-fights, a disaster is waiting to happen. In April 2018 Turkish fighters even buzzed the helicopter carrying the Greek prime minister to the disputed islands. War will depend on whose plane goes down first.
If Greece and Turkey were left to deal with their own differences, the matter would of necessity be settled by diplomatic bargaining, since Turkey's huge military superiority makes war unthinkable. But the involvement of the EU and of Nato (of which both are members) creates an international context to which Russia, Israel and, most importantly, Cyprus, (none of which is a Nato member) also contribute.
The demonstrably invalid Turkey-Libya maritime agreement (announced last November) carving up areas of the eastern Mediterranean to which neither has any entitlement, would be laughable if it were not for the pathetic bleating of the injured parties. "Fait accompli" is the term being trumpeted by Turkey and implicitly agreed by others.
It’s been said that “all wars are about oil”, and that the discovery of oil in the Middle East a century ago precipitated the present conflicts. But that is to deny history: the crusades from the 11th to 15th centuries; the Silk Road bringing spices, silks and goldsmiths’ work from the Far East; the European footprint of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century onwards, all created conflicts of faith, commerce and ethnicity. And it ignores the present-day Islamic State and Taliban, which drive millions of Syrians and Afghans into the arms of an unwelcoming west.
Turkish influence
Turkey under Tayyip Erdogan seeks to extend not only its frontiers but its influence: the "Blue Homeland" promulgated by Erdogan and emphasised by Turkey's presence in Cyprus, and its alliance with Libya. As in past centuries, borders in the Balkans and the Levant are porous, flexible and frangible. In such a situation, Erdogan sees his actions as immune from international persuasion.
He is as unlikely to sit at any negotiating table as Donald Trump is to co-operate with his impeachment. Despite Nato membership, Turkey is, in effect, as unaligned as Trump's America, and as unpredictable. Citing international law is like waving a white flag at a bull.
On the face of it, Nato and the UN should intervene to pacify Greece and Turkey, while the EU should protect the interests of its member-state, Cyprus. In effect, nothing is happening. Erdogan realises that, if Turkey could with impunity invade northern Cyprus in 1974, and remain there without restraint, he can again breach Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone, thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. The international slogan “We do not negotiate with terrorists” should be rewritten: “We cannot negotiate with Erdogan.”
This is due not only to the grey area of international law, but to the lack of statesmanship within the EU and the mercurial nature of American leadership. Throughout the past year, Greece has been deluged, mainly by American spokesmen, with expressions of Greece’s centrality to peace in this region, and the great value placed on Greek diplomacy in the power-politics of the Middle East.
Semi-sincere but disingenuous
Almost all of this is semi-sincere but disingenuous, since Greece itself is merely a client state in a war much more extensive than any of the superpowers want, or can conceive, it to be. The EU is, in fact, unable to protect its members, and therefore itself, from the asset-stripping by Turkey, Russia and even China that occurs on a daily basis.
It is inconceivable that Greece would surrender any of its islands – even the tiny Kastelorizo, within a stone’s throw from the Turkish mainland. But the Greek prime minister has been recently accused by his predecessor of “appeasement” towards Turkey.
In European terms, the word carries echoes of the 1930s when Britain's policy of appeasement with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy facilitated the annexation, respectively, of the Sudetenland and Abyssinia. The League of Nations (precursor of the UN) had failed to sustain collective security or, indeed, peace. It is likely that that situation has again arisen.
With Turkey's aggression towards Syria and the Kurds, apparently encouraged by Donald Trump who regards Erdogan as his "friend", anything is possible.
And that is the tragedy of diplomacy and international politics: that possibilities are not limited to what is legal, honourable or equitable. The near-desperate calls from Greece for solidarity and effective support cut no ice in the frozen diplomatic sea of the eastern Mediterranean.
