The Fight for Mediterranean: Turkey, Greece, France, Libya, Egypt ...

[PointOfViewGun]

And the minister of Infrastructure of Turkey just posted a map that pretty much includes all the Greek islands of the Eastern Aegean as well as the Kastelorizzo region in the Turkish search and rescue area of responsibility. How this is NOT a declaration of war, is beyond me:

Yes, they didn't bother to cut out the territorial waters of the Greek islands that would look tiny in that map. They're not just gonna let Turkish sailors stranded because the search and rescue areas have not been deliminated. If you feel like this is declaration of war tough luck for you.

This does NOT give Turkey the right to unilaterally expand its territory. Turkey needs to understand that. In order to even go to court and reach a court decision, both parties need to sign the UNCLOS. Turkey refuses to sign the UNCLOS, believing that if they don't they pretty much have the right to do whatever they want. Well, that's not the way it goes. Turkey decided by itself that islands should have no EEZ whatsoever, and that's that.

It doesn't give Greece the right to unilaterally expand its territory either. Turkey doesn't need to sign UNCLOS to go to court as well.

Turkey's arrangement in the Black Sea is the equidistance principle, which is exactly the UNCLOS.

Black sea is a region where such a sea border does not create any overlapping claims. The expansion was done in 1960s, quite many years before UNCLOS II.

And yet the map you yourself posted actually shows Egypt as part of the pipeline. Which makes me wonder why the rest of your post would try to lie about it while it's there for everyone to see.

I think your selective quotation is what's there for everyone to see.

The decision of Greece regarding the pipline is in accordance to the rule of the UNCLOS. Not the odd exceptions that occur. Turkey attempts to use exceptions to a law that she herself hasn't even signed. Turkey acts as if there is already a court decision giving her the area, while there isn't one.

Nope. It violates UNCLOS principle of equity. Adjustments due to principle of equity is not an exception. It's the norm encapsulated in many real world applications.

[ioannis76]

Yes, they didn't bother to cut out the territorial waters of the Greek islands that would look tiny in that map. They're not just gonna let Turkish sailors stranded because the search and rescue areas have not been deliminated. If you feel like this is declaration of war tough luck for you.

Actually, it appears that you are unaware that the Hellenic area of Responsibility was delimitated in 1950 by ICAO and was declared to the ICO in 1975. It coincides with the Hellenic FIR and is in accordance with both the IMO and the ICAO.
Therefore the SAR areas were delimitated some 45 years ago.
As for their territorial waters, they are "tiny" according to Turkey.

It doesn't give Greece the right to unilaterally expand its territory either. Turkey doesn't need to sign UNCLOS to go to court as well.

It gives Greece a much, much better right.

Turkey doesn't need to sign UNCLOS to go to court as well.

So, based on which law does Turkey intend to go to court? The "law" of who has the most ships? Even there, Turkey is already minus one frigate (without Greece's even launching a missile, but that's what one gets for messing with a nation that fought large scale naval battles even thousands of years ago).

Black sea is a region where such a sea border does not create any overlapping claims. The expansion was done in 1960s, quite many years before UNCLOS II.

There was the UNCLOS I.

I think your selective quotation is what's there for everyone to see.

Does the map show Egypt as part of the pipeline deal, or not? Yes it does, case closed. Next.

Nope. It violates UNCLOS principle of equity.

Even here Turkey evokes a law that she hasn't signed. Sign the law, and let's go to court based on the UNCLOS, and let the court decide if it does or if it doesn't. Just sign the law.

[PointOfViewGun]

Actually, it appears that you are unaware that the Hellenic area of Responsibility was delimitated in 1950 by ICAO and was declared to the ICO in 1975. It coincides with the Hellenic FIR and is in accordance with both the IMO and the ICAO.
Therefore the SAR areas were delimitated some 45 years ago.
As for their territorial waters, they are "tiny" according to Turkey.

That's International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. You're confusing FIR with SAR. SAR was never deliminated in the Aegean as it relies heavily on each countries' claims.

It gives Greece a much, much better right.

Much much better right? Making up rights now?

So, based on which law does Turkey intend to go to court? The "law" of who has the most ships? Even there, Turkey is already minus one frigate (without Greece's even launching a missile, but that's what one gets for messing with a nation that fought large scale naval battles even thousands of years ago).

First you gotta decide if UNCLOS is international norm or not. You can't call it international norm one second then declare Turkey's inability to invoke it an other second.

There was the UNCLOS I.

And?

Does the map show Egypt as part of the pipeline deal, or not? Yes it does, case closed. Next.

It doesn't.

Even here Turkey evokes a law that she hasn't signed. Sign the law, and let's go to court based on the UNCLOS, and let the court decide if it does or if it doesn't. Just sign the law.

I'm commenting here, not Turkey. You need to come up with other deflections.

[Exarch]

Turkey is really throwing down the gauntlet to the europeans

[ioannis76]

That's International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. You're confusing FIR with SAR. SAR was never deliminated in the Aegean as it relies heavily on each countries' claims.

LOL, no. In fact, when the turkish F-16 piloted by Cicekli (I do not know his rank) and the late pilot Naim Erdogan was... well, lost near the island of Chios, back in October 8, 1996, it was the Greeks who conducted the SAR operation.
Here is the pilot, enjoying the hospitality of the Greek hospital of the island of Chios:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EBrmzSZz-E
He was later returned to the turkish authorities, of course.
If it was as you say, then the pilot would have been recovered by the turkish SAR units, since we can't possibly accept that the F-16 was... lost within what Ankara recognizes as Greek territory? What on Earth would it be doing in that area?

Much much better right? Making up rights now?

Nope. I don't need to. The UNCLOS is giving those rights to me. What is Turkey's claim, again?

First you gotta decide if UNCLOS is international norm or not. You can't call it international norm one second then declare Turkey's inability to invoke it an other second.

Why doesn't Turkey sign the law if she evokes it? Because the law doesn't suit her. Well, too bad for Turkey.

It doesn't.

Yes it does. Here is the map again:


You know you're weakening your own arguments with this attitude.

I'm commenting here, not Turkey. You need to come up with other deflections.

Of course, but we're talking about Turkey's attitude. We're not talking about the latest football match.

[PointOfViewGun]

LOL, no. In fact, when the turkish F-16 piloted by Cicekli (I do not know his rank) and the late pilot Naim Erdogan was... well, lost near the island of Chios, back in October 8, 1996, it was the Greeks who conducted the SAR operation.
Here is the pilot, enjoying the hospitality of the Greek hospital of the island of Chios:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EBrmzSZz-E
He was later returned to the turkish authorities, of course.
If it was as you say, then the pilot would have been recovered by the turkish SAR units, since we can't possibly accept that the F-16 was... lost within what Ankara recognizes as Greek territory? What on Earth would it be doing in that area?

No, if it was as I say, it has no physical effect on whose ships arrive at the scene first. It would only be undisputed if the plane fell within the territorial waters of Greece. In that case, with F-16s flying speed, it wouldn't take much to fell into.

Nope. I don't need to. The UNCLOS is giving those rights to me. What is Turkey's claim, again?

No it doesn't. It doesn't work that way. UNCLOS doesn't give the right to act unilaterally to party states.

Why doesn't Turkey sign the law if she evokes it? Because the law doesn't suit her. Well, too bad for Turkey.

It didn't because UNCLOS allowed situations like this open to interpretation without clear rules. Turkey was present in the convention and made its objections but the convention was dragging on many of the powers that had clear borders wanted it to be over. Why did Greece invalidate ITCLOS (the judiciary body of UNCLOS) jurisdiction?

Yes it does. Here is the map again:
You know you're weakening your own arguments with this attitude.

Already explained why its not. You can't wish your claims to be true. I wish we could, but no.

Of course, but we're talking about Turkey's attitude. We're not talking about the latest football match.

Then don't equate what I argue with what Turkey does. Simple.

[ioannis76]

No, if it was as I say, it has no physical effect on whose ships arrive at the scene first. It would only be undisputed if the plane fell within the territorial waters of Greece. In that case, with F-16s flying speed, it wouldn't take much to fell into.

It doesn't work like that. You may say what you like, but the fact is that areas of SAR are defined, and it's not "whoever arrives there first", because if it was like that, one would get in the way of the other, and the SAR operation would be near impossible to coordinate. The "whoever arrives there first" is a surefire way to put lives at risk.

No it doesn't. It doesn't work that way. UNCLOS doesn't give the right to act unilaterally to party states.

What is Turkey's claim again?
Oh, yeah, "we have more frigates than you".

It didn't because UNCLOS allowed situations like this open to interpretation without clear rules.

The UNCLOS does the opposite of what you say. It sets crystal clear rules for the resolution of the EEZ issues. It's just that the rules are not to Turkey's liking.

Why did Greece invalidate ITCLOS (the judiciary body of UNCLOS) jurisdiction?

It didn't. Greece excludes issues of Hellenic national sovereignty that Turkey defines as "gray zones" (ie even some inhabited Greek islands) from the jurisdiction. And it makes perfect sense, since we cannot be discussing about Greek territory (including inhabited Greek islands, such as Agathonisi), particularly with a country such as Turkey, that is prone to ethnic cleansing.

Ie, if Turkey thinks that areas inhabited by Greeks will be left to its mercy, without paying a heavy blood toll, Turkey should think again.
The only way to get Agathonisi is with war.

Already explained why its not. You can't wish your claims to be true. I wish we could, but no.

Actually you haven't. You know, it wouldn't hurt your argumentation to admit, once in a while, that you were wrong.
In fact it might help it.

Then don't equate what I argue with what Turkey does. Simple.

Your posts seem to be coming straight from the rhetoric of the turkish foreign ministry. Not really my fault.

[PointOfViewGun]

It doesn't work like that. You may say what you like, but the fact is that areas of SAR are defined, and it's not "whoever arrives there first", because if it was like that, one would get in the way of the other, and the SAR operation would be near impossible to coordinate. The "whoever arrives there first" is a surefire way to put lives at risk.

That's the way it is in Aegean since the parties have not agreed on a SAR. They have overlapping claims.

The UNCLOS does the opposite of what you say. It sets crystal clear rules for the resolution of the EEZ issues. It's just that the rules are not to Turkey's liking.

If that was the case there wouldn't be any of these ICJ cases we've pointed out before. You built your case on ignoring them. It is a matter of fact that in many cases Greece's interpretation of UNCLOs is not applied by ICJ.

It didn't. Greece excludes issues of Hellenic national sovereignty that Turkey defines as "gray zones" (ie even some inhabited Greek islands) from the jurisdiction. And it makes perfect sense, since we cannot be discussing about Greek territory (including inhabited Greek islands, such as Agathonisi), particularly with a country such as Turkey, that is prone to ethnic cleansing.
Ie, if Turkey thinks that areas inhabited by Greeks will be left to its mercy, without paying a heavy blood toll, Turkey should think again.
The only way to get Agathonisi is with war.

Greece declared ITCLOS invalid for articles 15 (Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts), 74 (Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts) and 83 (Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts). So, no, gray zones is not one of the issues Greece declared ITCLOS to have no jurisdiction over.

Actually you haven't. You know, it wouldn't hurt your argumentation to admit, once in a while, that you were wrong.
In fact it might help it.

I have though. Post #337. You ignored it.

Your posts seem to be coming straight from the rhetoric of the turkish foreign ministry. Not really my fault.

Not even close, but sure.

[ioannis76]

That's the way it is in Aegean since the parties have not agreed on a SAR. They have overlapping claims.

This is the Greek statement on SAR, which stands on the ICAO:

Search and rescue in the event of an aircraft accident is governed by the 1944 ICAO Convention (Annex 12) as well as by the ICAO rules. The Greek search and rescue area was designated by an ICAO Regional Air Navigation Agreement in 1952 and coincides with the Athinai FIR.

https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-gree...nd-rescue.html

Where does the turkish statement stand?

WHEN was it made?

If that was the case there wouldn't be any of these ICJ cases we've pointed out before. You built your case on ignoring them. It is a matter of fact that in many cases Greece's interpretation of UNCLOs is not applied by ICJ.

The ICJ cases were the exception. The UNCLOS is the rule. And it's not "Greece's interpretation of the UNCLOS", the UNCLOS is crystal clear. Islands have the full EEZ rights of the continental land masses. In case of overlapping, the median line is set. There are provisions for free maritime movement (so the argument that we had from the turkish side, that the map would close down the Aegean sea is invalid).
And since you evoked the ICJ, Greece unilaterally went to the International Court:

Since then, the repeated Turkish attempts to violate Greece’s sovereign rights on the continental shelf have become a serious source of friction in the two countries’ bilateral relations, even bringing them close to war (1974, 1976, 1987).

In 1976, Greece brought this very serious issue before the UN Security Council and unilaterally resorted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Turkey refused to come before the Court, invoking its non-recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court did not examine the substance of the issue for reasons of formality, due to lack of competence.

https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-gree...tal-shelf.html

So, Turkey neither accepts the UNCLOS, nor the ICJs rulings. What does Turkey accept?

[PointOfViewGun]

This is the Greek statement on SAR, which stands on the ICAO:
https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-gree...nd-rescue.html
Where does the turkish statement stand?
WHEN was it made?

From ICAO Annex 12:

2.2 Search and rescue regions2.2.1 Contracting States shall delineate the search and rescue regions within which they will provide search and rescue services. Such regions shall not overlap and neighbouring regions shall be contiguous.
Note 1.— Search and rescue regions are established to ensure the provision of adequate communication infrastructure, efficient distress alert routing and proper operational coordination to effectively support search and rescue services. Neighbouring States may cooperate to establish search and rescue services within a single SAR region.
Note 2.— The delineation of search and rescue regions is determined on the basis of technical and operational considerations and is not related to the delineation of boundaries between States.
2.2.1.1 Recommendation.— Search and rescue regions should, in so far as practicable, be coincident with corresponding flight information regions and, with respect to those areas over the high seas, maritime search and rescue regions.

Looks like Greece is treating a recommendation as a right. I am not sure of this magical ICAO Regional Air Navigation Agreement from 1952 as nothing comes up but the Hamburg Convention, International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue of 1979, requires parties to agree on it to delimitate search and rescue area:

2.1.4 Each search and rescue region shall be established by agreement among Parties concerned. The Secretary-General shall be notified of such agreement.

The ICJ cases were the exception. The UNCLOS is the rule. And it's not "Greece's interpretation of the UNCLOS", the UNCLOS is crystal clear. Islands have the full EEZ rights of the continental land masses. In case of overlapping, the median line is set. There are provisions for free maritime movement (so the argument that we had from the turkish side, that the map would close down the Aegean sea is invalid).

ICJ cases were the exceptional situation that required their judgment. The case between Turkey and Greece is similarly an exception case. Simply put, Greece ignores the principle of equity that UNCLOS highlights. ICJ doesn't. Hence, any similar case brought against a judgment committee receives a different application than the one Greece wants.

And since you evoked the ICJ, Greece unilaterally went to the International Court:
https://www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of-gree...tal-shelf.html
So, Turkey neither accepts the UNCLOS, nor the ICJs rulings. What does Turkey accept?

Yes, Greece unilaterally went to ICJ. Countries normally don't do that. Sides come together to form an understand on what topics ICJ will cover and they present that understanding to ICJ in writing. ICJ cases are held based on that.

[ioannis76]

And here is an update on the Search and Rescue areas that Turkey disputed recently:
https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/11/0...greece-aegean/

The official response of the ICAO Secretary General Fang Liu. Just goes to show how preposterous the claims that Turkey makes are, in an obvious effort to gain something by removing them from the table if negotiations do occur.

Yes, Greece unilaterally went to ICJ. Countries normally don't do that. Sides come together to form an understand on what topics ICJ will cover and they present that understanding to ICJ in writing. ICJ cases are held based on that.

Like I said, we can't discuss every single ridiculous claim that Turkey makes. Turkish may even claim the island of Crete, or even Peloponisos. They just make as many claims as possible, believing that they can get something for nothing. Well, it doesn't work like that. The point is that Turkey doesn't want to sign the UNCLOS, nor does she want to go to the ICJ. If Turkey says that the ICJ does not have the authority to deliberate on such issues, and if Turkey doesn't accept the UNCLOS, there is no legality whatsoever in Turkey's claims.

Anyway, my personal view is that we should just go to war and get this over with. And a large scale one, at that.

[ioannis76]

Can someone explain to me what "sovereign" rights Turkey has on a Greek island? Does Turkey now question the sovereignty of Kastelorizzo?
This is a direct result of Merkel's coddling of a country openly hostile towards not one, but two EU countries.

[PointOfViewGun]

Can someone explain to me what "sovereign" rights Turkey has on a Greek island? Does Turkey now question the sovereignty of Kastelorizzo?
This is a direct result of Merkel's coddling of a country openly hostile towards not one, but two EU countries.

This was tweeted by the Twitter account of Turkish foreign ministry in response to an article tweeted by Greek foreign ministry Twitter account with the Greek foreign ministry tweet quoted in the Turkish foreign ministry tweet. The article describes Turkey as a threat to Europe. No question, the tweet should have been written properly. It's not. Yet, its still not a claim Turkey is making on the island itself. Just like the 10 nm airspace reference, the reference to Kastellorizo is merely a reference to the overall issue of EEZ. Turkey never questioned who the island itself belongs to. It wouldn't make sense to interpret the tweet as Turkey making a claim on Kastellorizo itself as we know that very well but we also know very well that Turkey doesn't want 10 nm airspace.

Meanwhile, Greece have been a no-show in NATO meetings with Turkey regarding the purpose to avoid a clash in the Mediterranean for a few months now.

[Beorn]

The last sentence is simply a lie, anyone with access to the internet can confirm that several meetings have taken place in the last months between the 2 parties on that purpose, and the only time Greece pulled off was on Nov. 30th

Waiting for the next lie, Sethy

[PointOfViewGun]

The last sentence is simply a lie, anyone with access to the internet can confirm that several meetings have taken place in the last months between the 2 parties on that purpose, and the only time Greece pulled off was on Nov. 30th
Waiting for the next lie, Sethy

You gotta explain how you manage to label it as a lie in a post that you yourself confirm it to be true.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You gotta explain how you manage to label it as a lie in a post that you yourself confirm it to be true.

..You said Greece has been a no show for months, he said it was literally 1 day, and you say that that somehow confirms your statement..?

[PointOfViewGun]

..You said Greece has been a no show for months, he said it was literally 1 day, and you say that that somehow confirms your statement..?

Sigh... The meetings were being held for a few months. We know Greece didn't initially wanted to attend, going as far as denying Stoltenberg's announcement on the start of talks. That was back in early September when the talks were supposed to start. Then we know for a fact that Greece didn't attend the meeting on November 30th as Beorn confirms. It was also claimed by Turkey that Greece didn't attend 3 more meetings on late October.

[ioannis76]

The last sentence is simply a lie, anyone with access to the internet can confirm that several meetings have taken place in the last months between the 2 parties on that purpose, and the only time Greece pulled off was on Nov. 30th

Waiting for the next lie, Sethy

Oh, he's lying about much more than that, to be sure.
He is saying that the turkish Foreign Ministry statement regarding Turkey's "sovereign rights in Kastelorizo" is a "mistake", but so far there has been no correction to it. In fact, the statement of the turkish Foreign Ministry is merely a continuation of Fuat Oktay's (the Vice President of the Republic of Turkey) statement, directly questioning the sovereignty of Kastelorizo. I had pointed it out some time ago, and his reply is that Fuat Oktay was expressing his personal opinion.
Here is the statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0uyURjwxNQ

Oktai, the vice president of Turkey directly questioned the Hellenic sovereignty of Kastelorizo. At 51:20, he says "there are lots of questions over here (pointing to Kastelorizo on the map) After the Fisrst World War many (....) islands were given to Greece. There were some islands, we call them "Twelve Islands" I guess (the Dodecanese), they were questionable areas including the Meis (he refers to Kastelorizo)> Then, somehow, that belonged (to) Italy, claimed that belonged to Italy. We did not have an agreement on that. Later on, 1930s, some agreement was made, and all of a sudden, in 1947, those islands, including Meis (Kastelorizo) were given, after the second world war, to Greece. By whom? By Italy. Italy doesn't own the islands. Italy doesn't have the right to give those islands, and Meis (Kastelorizo) to Greece."

I don't know about you, but to me it sounds A LOT like questioning the sovereignty of the island Kastelorizo.

This was POVG's reply:

I really am not. There is no official Turkish position that questions the ownership of Kastellorizo. Fuat Oktay's comments are his own opinion. His comments doesn't dictate official Turkish position. It's no different than Greek politicians lamenting about having a right to İzmir or İstanbul. So, no, again, Turkey doesn't question the sovereignty of Kastellorizo. Never did. You're merely grasping at straws.

AS IF Oktay's statement is not "official". Well, now that we've got an official statement, he's just saying that "it's a mistake".

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh, he's lying about much more than that, to be sure.
He is saying that the turkish Foreign Ministry statement regarding Turkey's "sovereign rights in Kastelorizo" is a "mistake", but so far there has been no correction to it. In fact, the statement of the turkish Foreign Ministry is merely a continuation of Fuat Oktay's (the Vice President of the Republic of Turkey) statement, directly questioning the sovereignty of Kastelorizo. I had pointed it out some time ago, and his reply is that Fuat Oktay was expressing his personal opinion.
Here is the statement:
This was POVG's reply:
AS IF Oktay's statement is not "official". Well, now that we've got an official statement, he's just saying that "it's a mistake".

Saying that the wording was not appropriate doesn't mean I called it a mistake. It's not a mistake to highlight the fact that Turkey stands by its claims about Kastellorizo's EEZ and 10 nm airspace that Greece claims. Is there any particular reason why you're unable to respond to what I actually said as opposed to what you think I said?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Sigh... The meetings were being held for a few months. We know Greece didn't initially wanted to attend, going as far as denying Stoltenberg's announcement on the start of talks. That was back in early September when the talks were supposed to start. Then we know for a fact that Greece didn't attend the meeting on November 30th as Beorn confirms. It was also claimed by Turkey that Greece didn't attend 3 more meetings on late October.

Then you should have disputed his statement rather than claiming that it confirms yours when it does not.

Oh, he's lying about much more than that, to be sure.
He is saying that the turkish Foreign Ministry statement regarding Turkey's "sovereign rights in Kastelorizo" is a "mistake", but so far there has been no correction to it. In fact, the statement of the turkish Foreign Ministry is merely a continuation of Fuat Oktay's (the Vice President of the Republic of Turkey) statement, directly questioning the sovereignty of Kastelorizo. I had pointed it out some time ago, and his reply is that Fuat Oktay was expressing his personal opinion.

Haven't you learned yet that not a single official in the Turkish government represents the Turkish government?