Troubled Waters

The recent discovery of gas in the Eastern Mediterranean has paved the way for notorious realpolitik and geopolitics. Turkey has discovered gas reserves on both the north and south of Cyprus. It was in August when Turkey’s exploration vessel ‘OruçReis’ found major reserves of gas in the south of Cyprus. Naturally, Cyprus, Greece, and the EU, all deemed it illegal and an offensive act. Turkey, more adamant than ever, is ready to protect its maritime boundaries and national interests in the troubled waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. To assert its position, Turkey even dispatched warships to the contested area and regular fly-pasts are being conducted in the air. But, Greece is not a bite that can be so easily chewed by Turkey. Greece and France, too, have dispatched their military vessels into the area.

The question is that what is the interest of France in this war of two neighbours. The simple answer would be geopolitics. Similarly, the UAE, that doesn’t even have its shores on the Mediterranean, is drilling there; again, the answer is geopolitics. Both these nations, along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are serving their interests which are averse to those of Turkey’s. Not just the waters of the Mediterranean, but the Libyan war, Turkish intervention in Syria, and Turk operations against the Kurds in Iraq, are some other areas where all these nations have a bitter view of Turkey.

Greece has its share of claims. Firstly, the main contention is on maritime boundary limitation. As per Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), every country is allowed to delimit its “territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles (NM)” and, concomitant to that, iit airspace is measured as 12 NM. Yet, Greece is an anomaly in this case. Though Turkey does enjoy 12 NM of airspace, it has 6 NM of the maritime boundary as per its bilateral agreement with Greece. However, the tide is turning and Greece is abjuring its “passive foreign policy” - a term coined by Greek Prime Minister Kyriako Mitsotakis – and claiming the complete 12 NM for its maritime boundary. Turkey challenges this assertion. Another Greek claim which has heightened tensions between the two rivals is that Greece wants every island and islet on the Aegean Sea to have its territorial sea, a claim which has incensed Ankara. If that argument is considered valid, it leaves Turkey confined to the Gulf of Anatolia. Secondly, the issue is an interpretation of international law. Though Turkey is not a signatory of UNCLOS, it demands the 200 NM of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) up to 200 NM after its sea bed, adducing the Continental Shelf Theory. However, Turkish claims are left tenuous because of its non-adherence to UNCLOS and EU’s support to Greece. Thirdly, Greece has an opposing view on Cyprus, which claims to be an independent nation whose one-third area is alleged to be illegally occupied by Turkey which it understandably denies.

Will all this lead to an active military conflict and what will be the nature of future relations between the two nations? War is contingent upon many factors and as Clausewitz, a famous military thinker said, war is always a continuation of politics and must rationally serve basic political objectives; hence, it is unlikely that both Greece and Turkey, the former under economic strain and the latter under foreign pressure, will resort to war. Membership of both the sides in the European Union also subsides any chances of war. Moreover, regional actors like Germany are already venturing to reduce tensions. Yet, in the contemporary, idiosyncratic times of hawkish and popular leaders, conflict at a limited level does not seem a distant possibility. Reaffirmation of the Greek government’s Hellenic motto “dominating the heights” and Turkey following the “wolf-warrior policy” of China, shows despondent signs for any rapprochement. The gratuitous involvement of France and the UAE can exacerbate the already-tense situation. The European Union’s unilateral support to Greece can be justified in the context of the regime’s requirements, but the EU’s arbitration is expedient in this context. Finally, it’s the UN or the United States that can play a positive role as an arbiter or mediator.