Turkish provocations against Greece, 21 years after the Imia incident

[ioannis76]

The Imia incident was a high intensity standoff between Greece and Turkey, back in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak

Today, Turkey seems eager to revisit the issue:

http://en.protothema.gr/breaking-tur...proaches-imia/

The Greek Navy turned the flotilla away:

https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/83...ministry-Video

yet the fact that on the turkish flotilla there was the turkish chief of armed forces, as well as the fact that there were tv crews from Turkey covering the incident, demonstrates that Turkey was aiming at causing a large scale diplomatic incident, perhaps through an act of provocation.
According to some reporters and analysts, this was done as an act of "retaliation" for the denial of Greece to extradict the 8 turkish officers who requested asylum in Greece, after the failed coup:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-aegean-sea

It should be noted, that had the officers been handed back to Turkey, there is reason to believe that they would face torture and humiliation. It is also worth noting that the military helicopter in which the officers arrived was unarmed.

My question, is the turkish attitude (creating tension in a flammable area) the attitude of a rogue state?

Re-instated as OP after several additions. ~Iskar

[ioannis76]

Another provocation, and a dangerous escalation on the part of Ankara:

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/201...in-the-aegean/

[gastovski]

We simply want "our" islands back, those you stole.

[ioannis76]

We simply want "our" islands back, those you stole.

First of all, this is not how conversations are held here, using "we" and "you" in international affairs, if someone wants to speak about Greece or Turkey, he/she uses "Greece" or "Turkey". Secondly, Greece did not "steal" anything. These islands belong to Greece, and even turkish maps recognize this:



According to all maps, the island of Imia belongs to Greece. There is no map showing the islands as part of Turkey.

[Kyriakos]

What else did you expect from Turkey? It is a dictatorship and with ingrained impossibility to be democratic cause if it ever became a democracy it would instantly split to more countries (eg Kurdistan).
Turkey won't cause a war, though, cause it is a small player globally, and stakes are too high now with superpowers on alarm and trigger-happy for other stuff.

[PointOfViewGun]

The Imia incident was a high intensity standoff between Greece and Turkey, back in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak
Today, Turkey seems eager to revisit the issue:
http://en.protothema.gr/breaking-tur...proaches-imia/
The Greek Navy turned the flotilla away:
https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/83...ministry-Video
yet the fact that on the turkish flotilla there was the turkish chief of armed forces, as well as the fact that there were tv crews from Turkey covering the incident, demonstrates that Turkey was aiming at causing a large scale diplomatic incident, perhaps through an act of provocation.
According to some reporters and analysts, this was done as an act of "retaliation" for the denial of Greece to extradict the 8 turkish officers who requested asylum in Greece, after the failed coup:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-aegean-sea
It should be noted, that had the officers been handed back to Turkey, there is reason to believe that they would face torture and humiliation. It is also worth noting that the military helicopter in which the officers arrived was unarmed.
My question, is the turkish attitude (creating tension in a flammable area) the attitude of a rogue state?
Re-instated as OP after several additions. ~Iskar

Sigh... Both sides are acting like cry babies at the moment. However, I believe saying that just because Turkish generals ventured close to a disputed islet Greece is provoked is more of an insult towards Greece. It's as if they're itching to be provoked. Let's see. Two boats become a Turkish flotilla. Army's photographer that follows generals everywhere for photo opportunities becomes TV crews from Turkey. A simple visit to vicinity of the islet becomes a mission to cause large scale diplomatic incident.

Turkey’s top soldier visits Aegean islets of Kardak

Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar on Jan. 29 paid a visit to the disputed Aegean islets of Kardak, the Turkish Armed Forces has announced.

Accompanied by the commanders of the land, naval and air forces, Akar sailed to the islets of the Kardak region with two assault boats after conducting inspections on ships belonging to the Aksaz Naval Base Command, the military said in a statement.

On Jan. 20, Akar visited units in the southeastern province of Gaziantep and the southern provinces of Kilis and Adana near the Syrian border in order to carry out inspections as well as receive information regarding the ongoing Euphrates Shield operation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in northern Syria. He was accompanied by Land Forces Cmdr. Gen. Salih Zeki Çolak and Turkish Air Force Cmdr. Gen. Abidin Ünal.

The army chief later visited the İncirlik Air Base in Adana where he also conducted inspections.

The military quoted Akar as saying that Turkey had always regarded friendship and peace in all of its activities in the Aegean in terms of the mission to prevent its interests in sea.

It also stated that the Turkish Armed Forces was continuing to increase its efforts to prevent “attempts against the nation’s rights and interests.”

During his visit, Akar also noted that the Turkish military was an effective, dissuasive and prestigious power in the region, according to the statement.

The islets, Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish, are two small uninhabited rocks in the Aegean Sea, situated between the Greek island chain of the Dodecanese and the southwestern mainland coast of Turkey. Greece and Turkey nearly went to war over the islets in 1996 in an escalation that saw both sides embarking on a military landing on an islet each.

Only question that needs to be asked here is what about what happened here has to do with a rogue state? Is it anything other than an attempt to use a fancy word to attack Turkey?

First of all, this is not how conversations are held here, using "we" and "you" in international affairs, if someone wants to speak about Greece or Turkey, he/she uses "Greece" or "Turkey". Secondly, Greece did not "steal" anything. These islands belong to Greece, and even turkish maps recognize this:



According to all maps, the island of Imia belongs to Greece. There is no map showing the islands as part of Turkey.

That's an airspace map, not territorial waters... Sigh... It says so on the bottom... Historical maps give differing accounts on who the islets belong to.

[ioannis76]

That's an airspace map, not territorial waters... Sigh... It says so on the bottom... Historical maps give differing accounts on who the islets belong to.

Wait, let me get this straight first (there are more points). Are you saying that Turkey (or any other country) acknowledges that the airspace of a country may cover a LAND AREA that is not part of the territory of this country?

Second, what business does the Chief of Armed forces of Turkey have getting his photograph taken (at least he didn't make a duckface) with a non-turkish (Greek) island as background?

[PointOfViewGun]

Wait, let me get this straight first (there are more points). Are you saying that Turkey (or any other country) acknowledges that the airspace of a country may cover a LAND AREA that is not part of the territory of this country?

In the case of a FIR, yes. FIR, flight information region, is a territory that's not necessarily bound by borders. For an other example. It's usually based on practical purposes. Turkey recognizes Greek FIR over the Aegean. It's normal for Turkey to not make a fuss over a tiny speck of airspace when its merely involves coordination of civilian aircraft.

Second, what business does the Chief of Armed forces of Turkey have getting his photograph taken (at least he didn't make a duckface) with a non-turkish (Greek) island as background?

Can generals of a country never inspect key locations and have his photo taken? Why can't he? They could make a duckface, hold up peace signs, or do a Slav crouch, does it matter?

[ioannis76]

Key locations of another country? No, I don't think so. Not without provoking the other country. In fact, not even low ranking troops can do that, without provoking the other country.

Explain to me what the map you showed proves, please.

[PointOfViewGun]

Key locations of another country? No, I don't think so. Not without provoking the other country. In fact, not even low ranking troops can do that, without provoking the other country.

If it's a key location for Greece, it's also a key location for Turkey. What's wrong about that? Does Greece gets so easily provoked? Members of each state's navies go near the location pretty much every day. Basically, what you say is factually wrong.

Explain to me what the map you showed proves, please.

The map shows a FIR controlled by England to go in and out of Irish borders...

[ioannis76]

LOL, Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The country you refer to as "England" is actually known as the UK.

Imia was given to Greece by Italy in 1932. There are numerous maritime maps clearly depicting Imia as part of Greece. On the other hand, no map has ever being produced in support of the turkish claims.

[PointOfViewGun]

LOL, Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The country you refer to as "England" is actually known as the UK.

I said Irish, not Northern Irish. The lands of the Republic of Ireland are not part of the United Kingdom. Sigh... These are really simple failures on your part that wastes time.

Imia was given to Greece by Italy in 1932. There are numerous maritime maps clearly depicting Imia as part of Greece. On the other hand, no map has ever being produced in support of the turkish claims.

Which treaty and which clause of that treaty gave the island to Greece?

When you say there are no maps that ever depict the islands as Turkish, what do you exactly base it on?

[ioannis76]

I said Irish, not Northern Irish. The lands of the Republic of Ireland are not part of the United Kingdom. Sigh... These are really simple failures on your part that wastes time.

Sigh... UK air space is consistent with UK land areas, even in your map. Look at your map again, and look at a map of the UK. FFS.

Which treaty and which clause of that treaty gave the island to Greece?

When you say there are no maps that ever depict the islands as Turkish, what do you exactly base it on?

Well, can you show me a map that shows the Imia islands as part of turkish territory? No, because there is none.

Which treaty and which clause of that treaty gave the island to Greece?

Finally we are getting to the meat of it:

A. The International Legal Framework
The islets of Imia ( known also under the 1932 treaty name “Kardak”)
became parts of Greece along with the rest of the Greek – inhabited
Dodecanese islands and islets through the Treaty of Peace with Italy signed
between the Allied Powers and Italy in Paris on 10 February 1947. Article 14
of the Treaty provided that:
“Italy hereby ceded to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese
islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes
(Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos) ,
Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso),
Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as adjacent islets.1”

But it gets more interesting here, because it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS IMIA:

On the same day, through an exchange of letters between the Italian and
Turkish governments initiated by Turkey, it was agreed that the two sides
would prolong the already established delimitation to cover the whole of the
Dodecanese region. A follow-on Protocol was signed to this effect on 28
December 1932. It continues the delineation of the border lines between the
Dodecanese and Turkish coast of Anatolia using 37 points and refers explicitly
to the islets of Imia/Kardak as belonging to the Italian (and therefore, since
1947, to the Greek) side. More precisely point no.30 reads, in the original
French text:
“La ligne frontiere […] passé par les suivants:
[…]
30- a moitie distance entre Kardak (Rks.) et Kato I. (Anatolie)”
Due to this technical nature and undisputed character, which is explicitly
stated in the letters exchanged before its conclusion and in its preamble, this
Protocol was negotiated and agreed upon at a lower level of representatives.
This argument according to which the Protocol needed to be registered by the
League of Nations
Secretariat and eventually published in the League of Nations Treaty
Series, cannot withstand criticism. In fact, the provisions of Article 18 of
the League of Nations Covenant were not adhered to in several instances
in international practice; that was precisely the reason for which the UN
Charter provides that lack of registration simply derives the parties to the
1 See United Nations Treaty Series, Vol.49, I. No. 747, 1950; emphasis added
2 See League of Nations Treaty Series, No. 3191, 1933
4
non-registered agreements from the possibility of invoking them before
the organs of the United Nations3.
Moreover, the recent case law of international tribunals and the
International Court of Justice clearly affirm the validity of such
agreements, which nonetheless remain binding upon the parties4.

http://www.eliamep.gr/old/eliamep/files/96IMIA.pdf

I don't think that the issue can be made any clearer. It is consistent with the attitude of a rogue state to conduct militarily provocative acts against another nation. The only real question now is, does Turkey wish to engage in war with Greece?

[Dracula]

Just that ? If they captured Evboea/Evia/ or Athens could have made it into the news.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sigh... UK air space is consistent with UK land areas, even in your map. Look at your map again, and look at a map of the UK. FFS.

It isn't. My map doesn't show the border lines as well. Yet, it's quite obvious that the FIR borders are not consistent with country borders as the Irish border is not flat...

Well, can you show me a map that shows the Imia islands as part of turkish territory? No, because there is none.

I can. I just haven't done yet because the ones I've found were not having good resolution. There are quite a few maps from Western sources that show the islands belonging the Turks, namely, the USA and the UK.

Finally we are getting to the meat of it:
But it gets more interesting here, because it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS IMIA:
http://www.eliamep.gr/old/eliamep/files/96IMIA.pdf
I don't think that the issue can be made any clearer. It is consistent with the attitude of a rogue state to conduct militarily provocative acts against another nation. The only real question now is, does Turkey wish to engage in war with Greece?

First document. Kardak is not an islet adjacent to any of the islands in that list. It's closer to mainland Turkey than it is to Kalymnos, an island listed there.

Second document. The protocol from 1932. This is a document that was neither ratified nor registered with the League of Nation as it would be required for it to be valid.

So, you gotta explain how it is clear better... None of this tell us that Turkey wants to go to war with Greece. Why do you want it to go to war with Greece?

[bigdaddy1204]

What else did you expect from Turkey? It is a dictatorship and with ingrained impossibility to be democratic cause if it ever became a democracy it would instantly split to more countries (eg Kurdistan).
Turkey won't cause a war, though, cause it is a small player globally, and stakes are too high now with superpowers on alarm and trigger-happy for other stuff.

I think this is a bit unfair. Turkey was doing really well in the first years of the AKP. Things were going great until Erdogan turned into a psycho dictator virtually overnight somewhere around 2012. Even the Kurdistan issue was improving markedly and there was real hope that things were turning out for the better. Turkey was on the brink of becoming a top-tier world country in terms of democracy etc.

Of course, all of that is now lost, as the country is now ruled by an openly criminal gang of thugs who are destroying every good thing the nation ever had. But I don't think it was necessarily inevitable.

[ioannis76]

Setekh, the issue, it seems has already been discussed. I came across this post here:

Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty.
"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The wording is unequivocal, Turkey has agreed that any territory which isn't explicitly mentioned as Turkish in the Treaty is no longer to be Turkish - instead the ownership of that territory is to be settled by the "parties concerned", which are the other parties to the Treaty (which seem to have settled on it going to Italy at the time, and then ceded to Greece in 1947).

Can you find a reference to Imia in the Lausanne Treaty? Nope. The closest you can get to is article 12, where in the second paragraph it says:
"Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty."

But the problem for our friend Turkey here is that the Imia islets are situated beyond 3 miles from the Asiatic coast, ergo Turkey cannot on the basis of this article claim ownership of Imia. Swing and a miss for Turkey. Can they do so based on some other clause in the Treaty? Nope, Imia isnt mentioned explicitly anywhere and it cant be inferred as a reference anywhere either.

This leads us back to article 16: since Imia isnt mentioned as within the Turkish frontiers in the Treaty, Turkey has renounced ownership of the islets.

Or to put it in other words Turkey is objectively wrong here.

which puts it in an excellent way.

It's closer to mainland Turkey than it is to Kalymnos, an island listed there.

Wrong again. A simple google map measure distance proves you wrong.

And I ask again. Does Turkey wish to engage in war with Greece? Because that's how wars start. Turkey is now acting like a bully, after its failure to even capture Al Bab, even as part of a coalition, trying to take its frustrations out on the "silent kid in the neighborhood". But I have said it before, and I will say it again, it is not a good idea to think that the Greek military or the Greek nation that supports and mans this military is as pliant as the Greek government.

[Kraut]

Wait a moment - this is an international crisis at the brink of total war because some turkish guy took a selfie with a greek island in the background. Seriously?

[ioannis76]

Wait a moment - this is an international crisis at the brink of total war because some turkish guy took a selfie with a greek island in the background. Seriously?

No it's not in the brink of total war, although Turkey started the tension. And we are not talking about "some turkish guy" we are talking about the chief of the turkish armed forces accompanied by the commanders of land naval and air forces, who went there in a turkish warship escorted by turkish SAT Special Forces in assault boats.

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/201...islet-of-imia/

[Roboute Guilliman]

Whats on these islands?