I have purposefully avoided (until now) to make any comments on the current situation in the Eastern Mediterranean (“Eastmed”) because some could consider me biased, which would immediately reduce the value of my views on the subject.
That may be the case indeed on one hand, but on the other, because the issue is of personal interest to me I have tried to study in as much detail as possible (for an amateur) the relevant international laws and regulations that apply to the situation.
With that being noted, I can tell one thing with certainty: Greece has the international law on its side. That is, it is at least more… right than Turkey. What I mean by that is that just like Turkey doesn’t currently have the right to drill in the Eastmed, neither does Greece. Actually, no one has any drilling rights there, so long as there are no EEZ delimitation agreements.
But the problem of a lack of delimitation agreements isn’t the core of the issue. Rather, it is Turkey’s refusal to sit around the negotiating table to reach an agreement. And worse than that, is the fact that Turkey even refuses to address the matter to the International Court of Justice (probably knowing in advance that it will lose because of its weak legal case) as Greece has proposed.
And therefore Turkey prefers to resort to its usual gunboat diplomacy.
Greece on the other hand, although perfectly capable of defending its sovereign rights on its own, recognizing that armed conflict isn’t the way international disputes should be resolved, opted to use the leverage of the EU, by calling for messages of support and potential sanctions against the aggressor. The attempt was successful, although one should be genuinely troubled by the lukewarm reactions of 3-4 member states.
Many point out that these states have very tight economic ties with Turkey, thereby perceiving that any moves against it, would damage their own economies. What they are missing however, is that they are in fact more tightly connected to Greece by being members of the same union. Here’s a simple example: Say war breaks out between Greece and Turkey, as a result of an accident because of the dispute. Greece will undoubtably prevail thanks to its superior air force. At the same time, any war means damages to both sides and so, apart from losing a lot of their economic ties to Turkey, the rest of the members will also have to refinance the damages suffered by Greece as a result of the war. On the other hand, if war doesn’t break out and Greece gives in to Turkish demands in order to preserve the peace, the potential gas reserves would serve a third party, rather than a member of the union.
And so it becomes apparent, that French President Macron’s Eastmed strategy of unconditional support to Greece (and Cyprus which faces the same threat from Turkey) is the only way forward, not just for certain EU member states, but indeed, for all of them: The show of force in the region will make Turkey think twice about entering an armed conflict. Meanwhile, should Turkey continue to refuse to sit on the negotiating table, the world will have to move on without it. Greece, Egypt and Cyprus will have to delineate EEZs without Turkey, in order to be able to exploit their natural resources. And should Cyprus and Greece do so, their economies would strengthen, thereby reducing their dependency on EU funding, releasing more funds for other members with weaker economies, increase energy security for the union and contributing to the economic prosperity of, indeed, all member states.
Our predecessors realized that transferring funds from the stronger members of the union to the weaker ones, in combination with the free movements principle, actually returned more money than they had initially contributed. If only current EU leaders had the same long-sightedness to realize that, Turkey would never cause issues in the Eastmed in the first place. On the contrary, because it is sensing a relative inaction against its trespassing, it’s moving to quickly to create as many precedents on the ground as possible, while the international community remains asleep. Remember what was the last country that followed this expansionist logic (using even the same argument of “vital space”) and what was the result when the international community said “no more” a bit too late?
Hint: It was Nazi Germany, right before WW2…