Filenews 2 November 2025 - by Stefanos Konstantinidis
Greek-Turkish and Cyprus issues are directly linked. Turkey connects them with the Blue Homeland with an aggressive mood, although Athens disconnected them to deal only with the Aegean. In the Aegean, the main disputes mainly concern maritime borders and rights to exploit natural resources.
Turkey disputes the extension of Greek territorial waters to 12 miles, that this is provided for by the international law of the sea, while at the same time it disputes the Greek sovereignty of many islands and islets. It also challenges Greek air sovereignty of ten miles. Essentially, Turkey seeks control of half of the Aegean, a kind of condominium. The issue is both geopolitical and exploitation of marine wealth. There is also the stirring up of issues by Turkey in Western Thrace in violation of the Treaty of Lausanne. After all, it always maintains the casus belli in force in case Greece exercises a legal right.
In a recent interview, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said that he hopes "the problems of the Aegean will be solved, as long as Mitsotakis is in power", adding: "I do not accept the 12 miles, you do not accept the six, these can be discussed", revealing that "in some points these were discussed with the exploratory contacts and proceeded to some points".
The status of the Aegean is regulated on the basis of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 and the Treaty of Paris of 1947 (for the Dodecanese) and as far as the continental shelf and the EEZ are concerned, by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international agreement of Montego Bay (1982), which establishes a legal framework for all maritime activities.
Turkey disputes the full influence of the Greek islands in the determination of the continental shelf and the EEZ and in some cases supports the total lack of influence. It is natural that this influence of the islands is limited the closer it is to the Turkish coastline. But it does not disappear as Turkey wants. The influence of the Greek islands exists on the basis of the law of the sea and affects the delimitation of maritime zones, EEZs, and continental shelf. The Greek position is based on the principle of the "median line" and the fact that all islands must be taken into account when determining the boundaries of maritime zones, which Turkey disputes.
International court decisions have upheld the principle that islands, islets and rocks have a right to maritime zones, although in some cases the need to avoid "disproportionate" importance for small formations is emphasized.
The influence of islands is also central in the context of maritime spatial planning, where activities such as tourism development, the exploitation of energy resources and the protection of the environment are taken into account.
Almost 70 rounds of exploratory meetings have been held between the two countries since the Simitis era aimed at reaching an agreement to refer the disputes to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, but they did not reach a positive result. After all, there is also a strong reaction in Greece to appeal to The Hague. Two former prime ministers, Kostas Karamanlis and Antonis Samaras, as well as many international relations experts and lawyers, believe that this will endanger the country's national sovereignty.
Recently, Mitsotakis proposed the convening of a conference with all the coastal states of the Eastern Mediterranean, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt and Libya, in which the issue of maritime zones will be discussed, while information was also leaked about a plan for a secret Greek-Turkish dialogue that will be activated with the arrival of the new American ambassador, Kimberly Guilfoyle, in Athens. In Parliament, however, he stressed that Greece seeks an understanding with its neighbours, always based on the law of the Sea. It is reported that the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs will undertake to explore the possibility and prospects of such a scheme and to what extent it could acquire permanent characteristics. However, the Greek-Turkish dialogue has been frozen lately with Ankara's insistence on putting on the table a series of claims that go beyond the issue of defining the EEZ and the continental shelf in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean - which constitute the only Greek-Turkish dispute for Athens - and thus de facto torpedoes the rapprochement process.
For such a conference, other difficulties arise as Turkey will raise the issue of inviting the occupied territories to it, that is, the pseudo-state, next to the Republic of Cyprus, there is also the instability of Libya and its dependence on Turkey, while Egypt has recently approached Turkey. And most importantly, Ankara insists on the positions of condominium in the Aegean and suzerainty in the Eastern Mediterranean.
All this is happening at a time when Turkey is expanding its presence and influence in Libya, Somalia and many countries in Africa and the Balkans. At the same time, US-Turkish relations are heating up due to Trump and the admiration he has for Erdogan. Although it is natural that Greece cannot compete with Turkey of almost 100 million inhabitants and with a multi-level economy, despite its difficulties, Athens does not lack significant strategic advantages over it. It is enough to think that the alternative strategic route of the Americans to Ukraine and other countries in the region has become through Alexandroupolis and in addition with the American base in Souda, the US controls the entire the Middle East. But even beyond that, the whole of Greece from Alexandroupolis to Souda is a vast American base. But this American presence does not guarantee Greek national sovereignty at all, and in Greek-Turkish relations the Americans follow the fixed policy of equal distances. In fact, lately with Trump they have been favouring Turkey even more, promoting its upgrade and no one knows what awaits us if at some point we fall under Trump's radar.
In the face of this multi-layered Turkish foreign policy, Athens, Mitsotakis and the Greek elites are self-satisfied that they are on "the right side of history". Which "right side of history" implies servitude and service to American interests without any substantial quid pro quo.
The same is happening with Nicosia, which also follows the same policy of serving American interests. No one is asking Athens and Nicosia to get out of the Western camp. But an Athens-Nicosia axis within the framework of this camp, with both countries being members of the European Union, with Greece an additional NATO member country, could better serve their interests with an assertive policy. This is not the case, nor does the two countries seem to have the will and intention to stir up the stagnant waters of their foreign policy. We see this with the Cyprus problem as well, where the continuation of a barren bicommunal dialogue is sought without any intention of repositioning it as an issue of Turkish occupation.
We see what is being done against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, while there is silence about the corresponding Turkish invasion and the ongoing occupation of Cyprus. The Americans have never talked about a Turkish invasion, they talk about differences between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and acquit Turkey.
Of course, the responsibilities of the political elites, and not only, of Athens and Nicosia are unbearable. They deal with the minors, with the recycling of corruption and the clientelistic state, with the service of foreign interests but also of the local retail interests that are intertwined with each other. All this is hidden under the ideology of choosing "the right side" of History.
* Academic, poet. stephanos.constantinides@gmail.com
