TURKISH
– GREEK RELATIONS
From
Conflict to Détente the Last Decade
Fuat
Aksu
Turkish
Review of Balkan Studies, Annual 2001, pp. 167-201.
The concept of international relations stands for a variety of concepts by nature. In the international system the sovereign states which are considered to be the main actors, in spite of the variations within the system, infer to the concepts of mutuality, sovereign equality, loyalty to treaties/pacta sunt servanda in their relations. Therefore, when these multitudes of concepts are considered there is an interaction between the actors who are already in relation or are likely to be in relation with one another. Within the interaction, the direction which the relations are taking and the methods and tools to be administered are shaped to a great extent in the frame they are perceived by the decision makers.[1]
The reciprocal perceptions, although not definitely decisive in the shaping of the choices of foreign policies, are extremely important in terms of the humanitarian and cognitive dimensions of the issue[2] The reactions of the actors who are interactive and responsive to the issues are determined according to their perceptive means and decision making mechanisms, whereas what is asked in reality, is to execute the applied policy, as rational as possible.
Another issue to be mentioned within the same framework would be the possible reaction of the actor at a moment of crisis and the degree of density that the reaction has, its coherence with the purpose, the tools to be used, all of which necessitate the deft and correct perception of the information relevant to the situation or event in question. This purpose is not easily achieved in international relations because the correct and speedy conveyance of the information regarding the event to the decision maker is time consuming and thus, it is affecting the timing of the response plus its potency or density.[3]
In this article, the Turkish-Greek relations of the last decade, incidents which shaped the foreign policies of the two countries and the factors affected their perception will be examined.[4] The general characteristics of the Turkish-Greek relations and the recurrent crisis that ensue, as well as the endeavours proving differences from the last years will be taken up. The Turkish-Greek relations have been affected to a great extent by the differentiation of the national political systems and the changes within the international political system. The events to be analysed, will indicate that the problems and disputes occurring between the two countries are mostly legislative, political and technical. Furthermore with this aspect is strictly related to the sovereignty rights and the status quo of the countries in question. With these properties at hand, the two parties cannot reach a consensus for the determination of mutual problems and agree on their preexistence, choosing to adopt a political or legislative solution.[5] Setting out from the disputes between the two parties, in time each side sees the other as a threat for its national security, sovereignty rights and interests. In such a circumstance the lack of mutual trust between the two countries prevail. In fact, before entering a dialogue for settling of major disputes, a relationship based on mutual trust has to be founded between the parties. Similarly, before the 1990’s Confidence Building Measures (CBM) had been brought in to enhance and augment the trust between the two countries.[6] Nevertheless, the visible bringings of these CBM were to be obtained only during the second half of the 1990’s.[7] The last decade of the Turkish-Greek relations have witnessed interesting developments. Both countries have seen each other o some extent as “source of threat” and “enemy” and unfortunately this judgement has been reflected to the foreign policy process as well. As numerously iterated while discussing the nature of Turkish-Greek relations, distinctions between the politicians and the peoples were made in order to reach o positive assessment. Generally, contrary to the politicians’ vision of the other party as “source of threat” and “enemy”, people conceived each other through concepts of “ friendship”, “solidarity”. From time to time, it can be observed that the national media elaborated tension between the two to create sensation but the general tolerance still persists. However, there really exist numerous political, legislative and technical problems.[8] During conflict solution, the perceptions, approaches and responses without determining the winner or loser, instead of determining the grounds of bargaining so that the existing problems can be solved.
Among the foremost factors that impede or render difficult the reaching of a solution to the disputes between the two countries, come the reciprocal negative perceptions of the public opinions (to some extent) and the political parties.[9] The reciprocal perceptions of the Turkish-Greek relations can be analysed in two dimensions: the first one is concerning the national identity and the characteristics and the other one is the perceptive dimension of these countries with respect to their intentions. What should not be discarded here is that in both dimensions there is reciprocity. Within this framework, both parties need to consider, perceive and understand the other country’s decision makers, trying to empathize with the other, to withhold their threat perceptions in order to be able to reach a sound result when they need to perceive the tactic/strategic positions of each other.[10]
In addition to this, these reciprocal perceptions render possible the flow of information to the decision maker, target country and the country in question. On the other hand, the political decisions are taken based on the knowledge obtained about the target country, and the effect and success to be obtained could be easily manipulated and diverted. It is possible to determine the strategy and tactic to be followed in such relations by following the target country’s people and how they get involved in the political processes, their sensitivity to the problems and the political moves. When this issue is handled with respect to the internal dimension, it can be observed that the governments of the countries have relied on the reciprocal perceptions when they needed to publicize their policies regarding the target country. In this case, the controversies have been brought up and there is a modification in the adjectives that are being used; for example, “enemy”, “source of threat”, “aggressor”, “invader”, “barbaric”, “uncompromising”, “clamorous” and “country that impedes the national interests”.
In this article, the issues and events that have caused the two countries to conflict and go into crisis are to be analysed and the way the politicians and national public opinions’ perceptions have been effective in the decision making process of foreign policies, as well as how these are reflected to their tactics will be examined. The attempts of forming a dialogue after the crisis and the collaborative efforts within the framework of CBM will be focused upon.
If the Cyprus issue is laid aside it can be said that the problems between the two countries condense mostly on the following issues:
· The Kardak Rocks crisis and territorial water boundaries
· S-300 missile systems being placed in Cyprus
· Greece-PKK-Öcalan relations
· Greece’s influence on Turkey-EU relations
Adding to the problems above, there are also disputes coming up due to different perspectives and interests. However in 1999 a positive development reshaping both countries’ perceptions is noted.
Namely the negative and positive developments in the relations may be counted as follows:
· The opinions of G. Papandreou on recognizing identity of the Western Thrace’s Turkish minorities.
· The declaration that Kardak and the placement of S-300 missiles in Cyprus were among mistakes
· The detention of some Greek bureaucrats and government officials right after their illegal support to PKK and Öcalan has been announced
· During the Ýzmit Gulf and Athens earthquakes a full civil and individual aid movement and its repercussions were marked in the political circles
· The increasing positive effects of both public opinions in both countries upon on their politic leaders’ discourses
· The declaration of Greece’s full support on Turkey’s candidacy for full membership to the EU
· The endeavour to solve the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate’s request on reopening the Theological School of Halki Island and the settlement on establishing a relevant department at Istanbul University.[11]
How does this
situation affect the relations? The relations, depending on the nature of the problem
existing between Turkey and Greece, that have come to the edge of war from time to time,
the tensions between the two countries considerably decreased. Both countries have
mentioned this warming up and softening of the relationships. Furthermore, it is
considered to be the first step in opening up the dialogue process that was to amend for
the lack of trust encountered in solving problems.
Since a long
past it has been iterated that the governments that genuinely desired to find solutions
and gain progress but also had no consider the reactions of the opposing political parties
and their public opinions. In his context, the recovery in the Turkish – Greek relations
has been deficient for the governments of both countries. However, he foreign policy
profits and relationships as a whole were focused and indexed on the developments of the
problems encountered in their relations. When the multiple interests of Turkey and Greece
were taken into consideration, somehow both countries considered each other of vital
importance. This situation is also being improved now.
In essence,
despite the softening of the character of relationships there is hardly any difference in
the political/legislative views and evaluations. What has changed is only approaching
these views and relaying the results to the public opinion. In order to be able to talk of
a radical change in the Turkish-Greek relationships, the change of style should be
supported. This change is related strictly to the sincere efforts of both parties to enter
into constructive relations to bring fair solutions to the problems. In fact, 1999-2000 to accomplish the change of
style in both parties were displayed explicitly. Decisions to exert constructive effort on
issues involving economy, culture, tourism, education, terrorism and environment were
taken. On the other hand, with the Helsinki Summit wherein the candidacy process of Turkey
to the EU has initiated, the expectation was iterated that until the year 2004 the
problems between the two countries would be solved in dialogue or the recognition of the
International Court of Justice’s authority.
The issues that
caused the Turkish-Greek relationships to shift from conflict to concord were the
optimistic developments in the Kardak problem, S-300 missiles crisis, Greek-PKK relations,
and Turkey-EU relations.
During the
evolution of this event, which almost brought the two countries to the brink of war, it
could be observed that both countries discussed the issue and presented it to the public
opinion as “national case”, “national sovereignty dispute” and thus the issue
gained actual momentum and necessitated
military measures.
As for the
national territorial water boundaries, it is a technical issue and mileage on Aegean Sea
in this respect is still uncertain, it is also vital it determines the national borders
the sovereignty regimes.
Upon the events
which followed the grounding of the Turkish freighter, Figen Akat on December 25,
1995 on Kardak Rocks region it becomes apparent that the sovereignty of this area is not
determined within mutual acts. The Greek
ships had claimed that the region was within the territorial waters of Greece and they had
offered to help the Figen Akat ship crew. The Turkish captain claiming the area was
in the Turkish territorial waters, had refused their offer. Finally the Turkish insurance
company had attempted to rescue the ship.
In the meantime
Greece issued Turkey a note on the 26 December 1995, claiming that the ship in question
was in the territorial waters of Greece and requested the rescue operations be stopped. On
the very same day, Turkey sent Greece a reply and the affirmations were denied.[12] While the salvage operations were going on, the Greek
boats tried to hinder the operation, when a trailer tried to rescue the ship by pulling it
ashore. The trailer’s rope was stuck in the swivel of the ship and the ship finally was
freed when the crew cut the rope and sailed towards the Turkish territorial waters. Later
the ship was towed to Güllük Port[13]
When the
official notes exchanged between the Foreign Ministries of the two states are studied, it
is interesting notice that both countries had justifications of legislative and politic
nature that validated their affirmations on the area being in their own territorial
waters. On the other hand Turkey had stated in the diplomatic note of January 26, 1996
that they were ready to determine the status of the many islands, islets and rocks in the
Aegean Sea the status of which had not been determined yet. Greece refused the proposal in
the diplomatic note of February 16, 1996. After this stage the issue of the Kardak Rocks
has been a source of interest for the public opinion and both I Turkey and in Greece.[14]
While the
diplomatic relations between the two countries proceeded, the sovereignty claims of both
countries were displayed physically as well and according to the issue was taken as a
“national case” and its nature changed from “dispute” to “conflict”[15]
The problem
worsened when the priest of Kalymnos Island together with the mayor placed the Greek flag
on the Rocks with their families and the Greek TV channel named Antenna broadcasted this
ceremony on 26 January 1996.[16] After
the event appeared on television the Turkish media boosted the issue and two journalists
from Hürriyet landed on the island with a helicopter, replacing the Greek flag
with a Turkish one. When this strife for the flags was then shown on television and the
pressure of the public opinion in both countries augmented. Eventually this resulted in
the harshening of the diplomatic relations between the two countries.
On 28 January
1996, the Greek government could not resist the pressure any longer and sent a military
team to replace the Turkish flag; the team was loaded with heavy armament and launched on
the island. The same day the Turkish Ambassador in Athens was invited to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and was informed that anybody coming to closer the island, would be target
to fire.
Finally the
political and military leaders came to the conclusion that the Greek military presence and
Greek flag were to be removed from the island. The reaction to be shown was to be directed
with utmost care and delicacy so as not to give way to a battle. As a result, taking heed
of what Ýnal Batu said[17] the Turkish commandos landed on the smallest of the
Kardak Rocks which was not carrying the Greek flag. The plan was carried out with success
and the Turkish commandos landed on the second rock on the 30 January 1996. This
intervention, though seeming to equalize the initiative of both countries with respect to
the severeness of the case, also carried the risk of hot battle.
Nevertheless it could prevent a “zero sum” game.[18] Finally, USA intervened during the rise of the crisis and
through diplomatic means tried to bring the situation back to its former status (status que ante) and succeeded in its endeavour.[19] The attempt which rendered this return to the status
quo possible, was the landing of the military team on the second rock and the US
declaration was that “in case of not opening
fire to the Turkish soldiers there is order not to open fire to the Greek military team
and in the Greek military force withdraws its presence and the Greek flag, the Turkish
military forces will do the same”, the declaration from USA stipulating: “the party that shoots the first bullet will find the
USA against it” was also efficient.
During the
crisis in Greece, C. Simitis had just come out of the elections and had become the
political leader. In Turkey then Tansu Çiller was Prime Minister and there ruled the
coalition government constituted by Çiller’s DYP and SHP where Deniz Baykal was the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the leader of SHP. Both Turkey and Greece were caught
unexpectedly without having time to prepare national thesis of the subject. So much that
when the discussions on which country held the sovereignty rights of the Rocks within both
countries were stipulated that the Rocks was under their sovereignty and within
territorial boundaries. The reactions were at maximum level. When conceived from this point of view, it was
clearly observed that at the process of decision-making, the perception of the political
decision makers and their level of perception were extremely effective. The way the
dispute was perceived was effective to convert almost into a conflict. Here the effect of
the politic figures of the countries and the public opinions were withnessed very vividly.
For example when Simitis won the elections and founded the new government on the 19
January 1996[20] he was accused his political rival Arsenis and opponent
newspapers for “offering a present of the Greek land to the Turks” and
created great impact on the government. During the crisis, it was observed that the Prime
Minister Simitis and the Minister of Defence Arsenis, as well as the Minister of Foreign
Affairs Pangalos and the Hellenic General Staff Admiral Lymberis were all at separate
stances. According to Arsenis, “The Greek Foreign
Ministry had asked the Defence Ministry to increase supervision and attention to
activities in the area of the islets [Kardak Rocks] under the direction of Admiral
Lymberis and the Hellenic General Staff”.[21] Their raising the Greek flag on the island followed this
request. During a radio speech Pangalos had delivered on 26th of January 1996
he had stated that Turkey was putting forth these sovereignty claims for the first time,
and went on to underline the fact that Turkey had not demanded Greek territory and had
insistently put forth the fact that the sovereignty of the Kardak Rocks was not definite.
On the radio broadcast of the 28 January 1996 he stipulated, “Turkey was leading on a new provocation for Greece”.
At the press
conference by the Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Çiller on 30 January 1996 she proclaimed
Turkey’s opinions on the matter. She had abandoned previous views on the sovereignty of
Turkey over the Kardak Rocks, and claimed that the Rocks were within Turkish territory,
also emphasizing that the records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs justified this claim
and validated it.
It was apparent
that the simple naval accident of Figen Akat gradually turned into a violation of
sovereignty rights and territorial demand issue and finally both sides conceived this
fact. While the diplomatic endeavours were continuing each country created a national
thesis out of the incident and tried to validate it by creating situations to support it
through their own means and the media has facilitated this task. The issue that under
normal circumstances could be considered to be a violation of the national territorial
water boundaries or search and rescue (SAR) responsibility areas (in either case the fact
that the Rocks are under the sovereignty of one country or the other has no significance
in the context of SAR) and solved by forming a commission of the two countries’ experts
to analyse and take decisions concerning the case, the reaction was treated at the top
level military methods.[22]
In fact all to
be done in this issue was to enter into a discussion regarding the sovereignty.
Unfortunately it is Greece and not Turkey who controverted
the situation. In the reciprocal perception of the case “the perception of the
realities” and “the perception of the problem” have to be taken up respectively.
However this has not been achieved at that specific stage of the matter. Greece opposed
the requests for a dialogue under prejudice started discussing the sovereignty rights of
many other little islands like Kardak. the Turkish government naturally refused leaving
the sovereignty rights of these islands which were not determined to belong to either
party by any treaty so far. It in fact would lead to the vital interests of Turkey in the
Aegean Sea, and of course was inadmissible.
On the other
hand, the Kardak Rocks crisis is interesting with respect to the decision-making and
perception processes. After the exchange of diplomatic notes the institutions in both
countries and have stressed the importance of the issue. For instance, the Naval Force
Commander G. Erkaya expressed his opinions in the meeting held at the General Staff thus:
“A ship has ran aground and there is a
sovereignty problem in the region due to a diplomatic note sent from the Greek government,
if the issue can not be resolved through diplomatic means it may necessitate military
intervention.”[23] On the 28 January the Turkish Ambassador in Athens Ümit
Pamir was invited to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was informed that the
Kardak Rocks belonged to Greece and that in case of landing on these Rocks the soldiers
would open fire. Upon this proclamation on the 29 January top-level meetings were held in
Turkey Turkey’s stance and opinion on the issue were determined.
According Güven
Erkaya: “There was tension at the meeting, because
the matter had risen to such extent that it necessitated immediate action within the
course of one or two days, be it either by using diplomatic means or military ones. The
Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs seemed decided in recurring to the latter
solution if the first does not solve the case, and when the possibility of recurring to
military forces came to the foreground the implications of what might be the consequences
also hung in the air and this created tension which dominated all… A helicopter did some
research on the Kardak Rocks and the information it brought affirmed the presence of
soldiers in the island. At the meeting first the Prime Minister Tansu Çiller turned to
Onur Öymen and asked ‘is our documentation strong? Does the island juridically belong
to us?’ the answer the Prime Minister got was, “Yes it is strong”
…Later the question of “how important are the Kardak
Rocks for Turkey” was asked. The diplomats explained that these Rocks were exemplary of
150 other rocks in similar political position. The discussion expanded from two rocks to
all the rocks and islets in the Aegean, to the continental shelves and even as far as to
whom the islands belonged. Underlying the problem of to whom the Kardak Rocks belonged was
the problem of the 12 nautical miles…thus the possessor of the Rocks would also be the
authority in determining the borders of the Aegean.”[24]
When scenarios
regarding the reactions were being discussed all the possibilities that could be faced in
case of military intervention and that such intervention could result in a small battle
were also considered. In case this solution was to be preferred the heavy responsibilities
and consequences of the action were apparent. Ýnal Batu’s proposal of sending soldiers
to the smaller rock on which there were no Greek soldiers settled is worth mentioning. The
fact that there were two Rocks and that the soldiers were positioned only on one of them
offered Turkey considerable lift to reach a decision.
According to Inal Batu “The strength of
this perception lay in its diminishing the risk of war visibly and it creates equity of
position and initiative.”
Even though this
proposition was not foreseen applicable in the first meeting, at the second one held at
the General Staff on the 30 January, it was noted worthwhile at that critical political
position. “…First we land on the smaller
island in which there are no Greek soldiers, then the following day, if there are no
political advancements the Turkish soldiers would position themselves on the Rocks in
which the Greek soldiers were posted. This last possibility, presented Turkey with a great
advantage. Most important of all, Turkey gained time and the equality in the international
arena was rendered.” [25]
While preparations are being made according to this plan, Greece was getting prepared for reaction that Turkey might display; in fact, when it was understood that the Turkish soldiers had landed on the second islet, discussions on the issue diverted in favor of the Turks and Greek political and military leaders had started to discuss whether the reaction was to be diplomatic or military. [26]
The S-300
Missile Crisis
The second issue to be assessed within the framework of security and threats between the two countries is the declaration of the Greek Cypriot Government for the purchase S-300 missiles and deploy them in Cyprus.[27] When we look into the crisis and its development, within the Joint Defence Doctrine of the Greek Cypriot Government, within the endeavour to increase their military presence and the desire to situate the missiles purchased for this specific purpose in Cyprus, can be regarded as a tactic endeavour as well as trying to reach a strategic target, at least to some extent.
All trough the crisis Greece has tried to legitimise the whole case as “self-defence” in the eyes of the Greek and international public opinions, trying to draw their cautiousness away from the peace that has been maintained since 1974 and tried to keep the tension within the framework of invasion and mistrust. It is clear that the peace and cease-fire conditions of 1974 are valid in Cyprus, and there is no possibility to invert the military balance of power in favour of Greece and the Greek Cypriot Government. This is so because the military superiority of Turkey in Cyprus is unquestionable. Furthermore, it has been expressed that in case the S-300 missiles were to be placed in Cyprus, Turkey would not remain a spectator and counter remedies would be found. Turkey’s view, over the situation, especially when considered under the principles of the Joint Defence Doctrine, signed between Greece and the Greek Cypriot Government, is directly related to the armament activities carried out in Cyprus. The air base that was being built in Paphos, the naval base that was being built in Limassol and the S-300 missiles that Greece wanted to place in Cyprus, are all directly related to the endeavour to change the balance of power in the Aegean and Mediterranean Sea in favour of Greece. Similarly, the Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus chain constitute a link that could render the south of Turkey a front for them in case of a Turkish-Greek confrontation. When the warplanes which Greece keeps in Paphos and the S-300 missile systems that are supposed to provide protection for those are considered, the armament is no longer for defence purposes but menacing. In fact, when the expenditures made for this purpose and the military systems that the Greek Cypriot Government tried to procure, Turkey proclaimed anxiety that Greece might ruin the peace which was preserved for 25 years in Cyprus. [28]
The declarations made by the Greek Ministry of Defence have indicate that the reason underlying the placement of the S-300 missiles in Cyprus was to be able to put the presence of Turkish soldiers on the island to negotiation ground. Within this perspective another target was the demilitarisation of the Island and then realizing Enosis through bringing Cyprus under the protection of EU/NATO, thus impeding the intervention of Turkey and annulling its position of protector.
On the other hand, when the attempt to place the S-300 missiles and the underlying reasons are levied with the defence and co-operation pacts that Greece had signed with Syria, Iran and Armenia they encountered risky for the security of Turkey.[29] Turkey and these three neighbouring countries have been encountering serious problems. Particularly upon the acceptance of the Baku-Ceyhan Petrol Pipe Line project[30] Turkey’s economic and political interests have gained sensitivity, security and concerns accordingly augmented.
On the other hand, when the attempt to the placement the S-300 missiles to Crete instead of Cyprus have not eased the heavy concerns and preoccupations of Turkey. In this case the delicate position was diverted to the Aegean Sea, Turkey had to improve the radar system and reconsider her defence priorities in the Aegean, where a new armament composition would began. In this respect Greece has proclaimed that it would not activate any of the missiles that it placed in Crete but that they were there for storage. This proclamation was meant to keep the present balance of power intact. With respect to the reciprocal perceptions, after Greece announced that the S-300 missiles would be placed in Cyprus Turkey brought up the issue to the military level of security, upon Greece and the Greek Cypriot Government backed not to create actual conflict.
Being encountered
as a problem in the Turkish and Greek relations, the Greek relations to PKK has started
with these groups were allowed to organise in Greece. Moreover the Greek military and
political offices were following a supporting policy that could be defined to be guiding
the terrorist groups. These facts have provided justifications to Turkey’s
preoccupations as to the security of its national prosperity and territorial integrity.
The success that Turkey accomplished in the Southeast Anatolia in combating the
separatist/terrorism has also had political reverberations and in 1998 one of the group
leaders Þemdin Sakýk was captured in Iraq, later followed by Abdullah Öcalan (the
actual leader of the PKK) who was captured in Kenya after an operation.[31]
The capturing process of these two important names in the PKK has also rendered visible the international links of the rest of two terrorist groups. After the capture of Sakýk, the leader Öcalan had to flee from Syria due to the incessant political pressure exerted by Turkey. The countries in which Ocalan could reside were Syria, Armenia, Russia, Iran, Greece and Italy. Turkey has requested that these countries would not give shelter to Öcalan. This process prevailed the fact that these terrorist actions which occurred in Turkey were of international nature. While trying to combat against the separatism threatening its territorial integrity and national security, Turkey also had to face international pressures quite frequently. As a matter of fact in this struggle Turkey was often alone. This negligence could be understandable when the positions of Russia, Syria, Armenia and Iraq were considered. However in terms of the approaches those countries such as Italy, Greece, Holland, Belgium and Germany took, were out of sense since these countries and Turkey joined in the same alliance. Moreover, these countries have tried to impede Turkey’s long struggle in maintaining her integrity and national security instead of supporting her.
Especially within the framework of problems encountered with Greece, the response that Turkey gave to this countries’ attitude rendered no result for a considerable period of time and Greece, officially proclaimed that it did not consider PKK as a terrorist organization and added that they respected their struggle in terms of human rights and democracy.[32] Indeed, some political figures in Greece have tried to deny their relations with Abdullah Öcalan and PKK. For instance Constantin Stefanopoulos (The President of the Greek Republic) in the book entitled “The Greek Paradox”, puts his remarks as follows:
“Greece is involved in no
malevolent action against Turkey. The assumptions that our country supports the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) in an active way are unfounded and for this reason Turkey could not
find any standing proof to justify its accusations.”[33]
Similarly, Greece
rejected Turkey’s accusations on this matter insistently but the fact that Öcalan was
taking shelter in the Greek Embassy in Kenya was disclosed and Greece had to accept the
accusation.[34]
The President of the Turkish Republic, Süleyman Demirel, proclaimed Greece to be a “rogue state” after Öcalan turned up in the Greek Embassy and also added that Greece did not respect the international laws by taking place among the countries supporting terrorism and that such actions were not befitting to a country which considered traitors as ally and friend. Furthermore, he went on to say that unless Greece desisted from this policy Turkey would go on to demonstrate the rightful response by searching for its legitimate rights with respect to the principles of the UN. The President also underlined the following:
Greece which is among the greatest supporters of PKK
should be added to the list of countries that “support terrorism” and has also
added that “Turkey would use its legitimate right
of self defence which results from the international laws if Greece did not stop these
actions.” He then went on to say that “Greece
has offered shelter to the PKK terrorist who are looking for a refuge and is offering them
training facilities and logistic support. Greece has never criticised PKK’s terrorist
actions instead a short time ago it has proclaimed that it did not consider PKK and
Öcalan as terrorists. Lastly before he was captured in Kenya, the aid that was given to
him by Greece, admitted by the Greek authorities themselves is open proof of the current
situation. With these developments Greece and its accomplice Greek Cypriots have been
caught on the deed.”
“Such a country can only be
defined as an ‘rouge state’ Nevertheless we want to give Greece another chance. Within
this framework I invite the Greek authorities to respect by the obligations that every
country, which is respectful to the legislation and civil law, should do: abide by the
constrictions of the international law. If, in spite of this, they prefer to continue with
their actions then, we reserve our legitimate right of self defence which the
international law grants us.”[35]
According to
Þükrü Elekdað, (a prominent ex-ambassador of Turkey) who evaluated Demirel’s speech
against Greece, as follows “More than a heavy
warning tone and it was almost an ultimatum. Turkey is perfectly justified in addressing
Greece as such because the UN laws regarding the struggle against terrorism and the
decisions regarding the definition of assault which are specified in 2/4 article define
Greece to be actually and legislatively assaulting Turkey by supporting a terrorist group
which aims to destroy the territorial integrity of Turkey.” [36]
The comments of Sami Kohen, a Turkish columnist, states that the following expressions taken from Demirel’s speech indicate the following implications and meaning:
The lines where
Greece is included among countries that “support
and give shelter to terrorism” and
“reserve our legitimate right of self defence which the international law grants us.” Also
come to mean, “in case Greece persists in
maintaining the same attitude, Turkey will consider this a casus belli.” [37]
The discovery of Öcalan’s relation with Greece has demonstrated that the accusations put forward by Turkey were not unfounded. In fact, the press declarations of Öcalan and the confessions that he made during his trial openly exhibited how after fleeing from Syria, they have received help from the Greek intelligence service (EYP) and political figures. In the press there were different evaluations of the matter, nonetheless, in Greece the government has declared that the circumstances had developed beyond their initiative and has applied to court for the penalization of those who were considered responsible. As a result the Minister of Foreign Affairs, T. Pangalos and the Minister of Internal Affairs, Papadopulos as well as the Minister of Public Order, Petsalnikos have resigned. The report that was prepared by the Attorney of Athens regarding illegally bringing of Abdullah Öcalan to Greece was such:
“Especially Öcalan’s being brought illegally to Greece and being offered shelter here may be regarded as an act of enmity against Turkey. Turkey’s thesis of this being cause for waging war is already known. These actions have not been done within the knowledge of the government and they are against the government thesis, which states that Öcalan’s coming will be harmful on a national basis and therefore shelter will not be given to him. This action has caused Greece to stand in a very difficult position and it is only natural for the Turkish population to resent Greece and for tension to be built between the two countries.”[38] In the framework of reciprocal perception it can be collected that Athenian Law Court has perceived the negative impact in the Turkish public opinion of such an action and has also conceived the probable results of such an issue.
If we look at the
developments that took place in Greece, after the capture of Öcalan, the declarations of
those who were accused of having taken part in this were interesting; for instance the
retired Admiral A. Naksakis, after his defence has declared that the Simitis Government
was to blame, “I brought Ocalan but I feel
remorse, I was the involuntary cause of his arrest…The government that caused the arrest
of Ocalan is now trying to discharge the responsibilities of the deed to the lower level
authorities.”[39] This
declaration renders it possible to arrive at similar deductions with Öcalan’s words. In
his declaration Ocalan tells how on the 9 October he fled from Syria with a Kurdish
representative who knew Greek, named Ayfer Kaya the code name of whom was Rozerin: “…When we arrived in Greece, the former expressions
that they were friends of PKK changed and they behaved entirely differently. They informed
me that either I was to go back to where I had come from or go wherever I wanted.
Meanwhile Rozerin got in touch with Dimitris from the Greek service [EYP]… On the 29 of
January we left Russia…Badovas and Naksakis assured me of my security and told me I
would be accepted in Greece. We came to Greece…but Dimitris who was in charge became
nervous again when he saw me and told me that I would be sent away directly.”[40] Probably after years of strong support Öcalan
regarded Greece as a natural ally. Similarly the understanding that ‘the enemy of my
enemy is my friend’ was adapted by Greece and PKK actions were supported, but since the
peril of the support being considered a Turkish-Greek problem or cause of battle have made
Greece change its policy. This change was naturally regarded by the PKK as “treason”.
For instance, Þ. Dilan Kýlýç, one of the escorts of Öcalan in his flight to Kenya has
criticised Simitis in Athens in a press conference: “Öcalan has been hand over to Turkey with an
international conspiracy and those who were the accomplices were CIA, MOSSAD, Kenya,
Russia and Greece” also adding that “On the
Greek front of the conspiracy the heroes of the conspiracy were declared to be the three
resigned ministers and the Greek Intelligence Service’ Chief.” She went on to say
: “We are dubious of Simitis’ moral values and
level he has indulged in immoral deeds, Simitis and Pangalos have deliberately handed
Öcalan over.”[41]
According to
another evaluation “everybody thinks that the
whole case is a fiasco and that we have handed over Öcalan to Turkey. But those who can
reflect calmly can see that the government succumbed to the over nationalist groups within
the government party and the intelligence services, and that Öcalan was brought to Greece
with their impositions. PASOK has acted under the influence of the sins which it had
committed in the years of its foundation”… “in 1997 the letter of invitation for
Öcalan was signed by 75 New Democracy Party members but now this party is no longer in
favour of supporting the Kurds just because they are against the Turks and they know well
that the consequences of offering shelter to Öcalan will be heavy.”[42]
The Washington
Ambassador of Greece, Aleksandros Filon had a meeting with the USA Under-secretary of
State M. Grossman. According to journalist, Çongar who reported this speech “…Filon said something else; ‘The Greek
Government has great sympathy for the Kurd cause’ It is for this sympathy that the
ambassador claims the operation was held in secret. According to him Athens intended to
get rid of Öcalan by sending him to a third country. Extradition to Turkey was not
possible due to the capital punishment that the constitution had. But if it were declared
that Öcalan was trying to take refuge in Greece there could be great tension between
Athens-Ankara. In his own words, ‘many people would have pressed for Öcalan to be
offered the right to take refuge in Greece but we were determined not to.” [43]
The separatist warfare which caused the loss of ten thousands of lives was openly displayed for the international public opinion and also Greece’s support to this movement was revealed. This has also affected the image of Greece in Turkish public opinion and at least for that period Greece’s attitude towards Turkey could hardly be considered friendly.[44] In Greece, after having been accused of these deeds, the government tried to indicate that this was not a government policy and that those who were involved in it were punished. Consequently Prime Minister Simitis had the chance to clear the political figures within PASOK and members of the government who supported views, and policies against Turkey. He removed those who were involved in bringing of Öcalan to Greece and formed a new group, thus also consolidating the position of the ruling party. The political leaders of both countries regarded this development as a warning for a transition to co-operation based on mutual trust. Turkey was pleased with the reaction of Greek government and also offered support to the Simitis government’s efforts improvement of relations between Turkey and Greece. Upon these developments Turkey has thus perceived the political structure of Greece and reflected its satisfaction regarding the appropriate developments.
Similarly, the Greek government also perceived the sensitivity of Turkey during the Öcalan crisis. When Öcalan was brought to Greece and asked for asylum, the Greek officials were confronted with a quadruple choice; “offering Öcalan asylum, deny Öcalan asylum and expel him from Greek territory, arresting Öcalan and extradite him to Turkey, and deny Öcalan asylum, but offer him temporary shelter until asylum could be negotiated with a third country.”[45] In case the first option was chosen Greece would have confronted Turkey since Turkey had stated clearly that offering asylum to Öcalan would be considered an “act of enmity”. Also it would shake Greece’s relations with the EU and USA concerning terrorism. The other two options have not been preferred because they might shake the position of the Simitis government in the internal policy and also its status as the leading party. The last option was preferred because they might have shaken the position of the Simitis government domestically and also its status as the leading party. The last option was preferred because it was the average and would not cause a confrontation between two countries. However it was also evident that this last option was risky due to its co-ordination and secrecy. This option was chosen in spite of the drawbacks mentioned above and the consequences resulted in a Turkish-Greek depression over Öcalan’s request to take refuge in Greece.
The Influence of Greece in Turkey-EU relations
When the general aspects of the relations between Greece and Turkey are taken into consideration, it is observable that both countries have been in conflict and search for superiority within the international organizations and alliances of which they are members. Within this framework it would be possible to talk of a balance in the diplomatic attempts within the organization they are both members of, despite this fact that Turkey is not a full member of the EU enables Greece to exert pressure on Turkey, thus taking full advantage of its position as a full member. The fact that Turkey is a country desirous to be a full member, necessitates to consider Greece’s right to veto this request. Nevertheless, Greek factor it is not the only impediment to Turkey’s full membership in EU.[46] In reality Greece was openly impeding the application for a full membership as well as the flow of the funds that Turkey needed for the actualisation of the projects in the process of becoming a full member and putting forth some prerequisite conditions. In the long run, when the general interests were in question Greece removed its veto on the 6 March 1995 when the treaty of customs union was signed between Turkey and the EU, accepting the treaty.
The priorities and conditions that are put forward by Greece in Turkey’s relations with the EU can be listed as follows:
· Giving full membership to the Greek Cypriot Government as the sole representative of Cyprus
· Withdrawing the Turkish military presence from Cyprus and forming a Cyprus under the EU/NATO protection
· Impeding Turkey’s gaining more effective position with respect to Greece by providing economic, political, military priority in the region through the EU financial funds
· Efforts for Turkey getting a lower share of the EU funds to finance Turkey’s harmonisation projects.
· The superior position of Turkey, as a potential full member of EU, with respect to Greece in mutual relations and the fact that Greece will no longer be able to make use of the veto right against Turkey which is still being used as a political tactic/strategy
· Ensuring the support of EU in problems concerning the Aegean Sea.[47]
Within the framework of all these interests and benefits, Greece got the covert support of all the other EU countries. In fact, when the membership of Turkey is in question, one of the major impediments that Turkey is presented with its objection of Greece. On the other hand it is also true that the other members are taking refuge behind this pretence to evaluate Turkey’s request to become a full member.[48] Therefore, it could be inferred that if the countries that hold an effective position in the EU were to support the efforts of Turkey to become a full member and if Turkey were to accomplish the requisite structuring, then the impediment posed by Greece could easily be overcome.
Even though in official declarations Greece has, in a diplomatic approach stated that they were not against the full membership of Turkey and that on the contrary they supported it, at the time of voting they declared that Turkey’s structural properties did not meet EU’s criterion. In fact, there were the doubts of whether Greece’s veto could be surpassed in the Helsinki Summit held on 10-11 December 1999 where Turkey’s candidacy for full membership was discussed, and positive voting was guaranteed only after the views of both countries reached a common ground. G. Papandreou, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a declaration prior to the Summit has stated that:
“Turkey’s membership is
accepted by almost everyone but Turkey is far too eager. Our dialogue with Turkey
concerning the EU has reached its last level. We must continue to cooperate in friendship
for the benefit of the two countries’ populace no matter what the results of Helsinki
may be…
Turkey is liable to meet the
required standards regarding the EU…we could not solve our problems up to now but if
Turkey is granted the membership status we will accept this. The EU membership is a chance
and a reform for Turkey. I hope the results will be positive in Helsinki. If Turkey
becomes a full member then it will have to abide by the Copenhagen criteria regarding the
issues of Cyprus and the Aegean Sea.”[49]
Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, I. Cem in the declaration he made before the Summit has stated that:
“If the EU were to divide the Aegean Sea into two, excluding Turkey then there will be a potential controversy. When EU is deciding, it must primarily weigh this possibility…we do not expect anybody to be close to us or make exceptions for us. We want the EU to evaluate us under the same criteria that they evaluate the other candidate countries. EU has taken its decision. It has also written this to the 2000 agenda, we will apply these. But if it wants to do in Helsinki what it did not do to others just because Turkey is a candidate, if it includes extra requisites merely because Turkey is a candidate then this will not do,”[50]
These declarations
have increased the expectation that there would be ground for a compromise before the
summit and Turkey’s candidacy would not be vetoed by Greece. In fact, on 10-11 December
in the meetings that were held, the existing problems between Greece and Turkey were
discussed and was settled to a great extent, and Turkey’s candidacy was accepted. It
also was stipulated that the problems between Greece and Turkey, as discussed in the
Agenda 2000, be solved by the year 2004 and if a solution can not be reached then the
problems would be revised in the European Council. This situation gave rise to different
interpretations.[51]
Greece proclaimed that the above date would be the date when they would take the
unsolved problems to the International Court of Justice. In the declaration made by
Simitis “We want to solve the continental shelf
problem and I do not think there will be any further problem in the process. If other
problems arise we will take them into consideration as well. There is a long time period
ahead of us, until the year 2004. We believe that by that time positive steps and measures
will be taken and if our problem were not to be solved by that date then we will bring to
the foreground the decisions of the International Court of Justice.”[52]
According to the
declarations made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Cem, “The date 2004 in the text is not the date to go to
the ICJ but the date when the EU will reconsider the issue. The EU has shed light upon the
issue… If the reciprocal concordance ways are blocked then we also know that the issue
will be brought to the ICJ. We wanted to solve many of the problems by sorting them via
meetings and discussions and the text brings this opportunity to the foreground.”[53]
In the Agenda 2000 document, accepted on the 15th
of July 1997 where the expansion of EU and the rules regarding this process were
indicated, the stipulations regarding border problems within the accordance endeavours
necessitates that the candidate countries solve their problems before their membership.
According to the text: “Enlargement should not
mean importing border conflicts. The prospect of accession acts as a powerful incentive
for the states concerned to settle any border disputes. The Stability Pact promoted by the
Union between May 1994 and March 1995 has also been influential in this regard. Today
several disputes, of low intensity, among applicants remain to be resolved.
The dispute
between Hungary and Slovakia over the dam on the Danube is before the International Court
of Justice, while the question of the maritime frontier between Lithuania and Latvia is in
the process of being settled. Some of the applicant countries also have unresolved
disputes with third countries. The Commission considers that, before accession, applicants
should make every effort to resolve any outstanding border dispute among themselves or
involving third countries. Failing this they should agree that the dispute be referred to
the ICJ.
In any
event, all candidate countries should therefore, before accession negotiations are
completed, commit themselves to submit unconditionally to compulsory jurisdiction,
including advance ruling of the ICJ in any present or future disputes of this nature, as
Hungary and Slovakia have already done in the abovementioned disagreement.”[54]
When assessed within this framework according to the Agenda 2000, for Turkey to become a full member to the European Union all the existing problems between the two countries should be solved and in case a solution is not reached then the two countries should bring their problem to the ICJ, accepting any result and verdict beforehand. When the candidacy to EU is in question, the issues which the controversies with Greece prevail are those concerning the Aegean Sea, particularly the continental shelf problem, the withdrawal of the Turkish military forces from Cyprus and the full membership of Cyprus to the European Union. At core, Turkey has declared that it is not against going to the ICJ. According to Turkey the two countries should start their discussing their isputes before they bring the issues to the ICJ. In this process the problems between the two countries should be specified and they should decide on which items to go to the ICJ. In fact, as Greece often states, the only real problem between Turkey and itself is the settling of the continental shelf and that this should be the problem to take to be the Court of Justice. Turkey, on the other hand insists that the continental shelf problem is not the only problem that the two countries are facing, that the expanding of the territorial waters boundary, airspace and the FIR responsibility regions, the demilitarisation of the islands, the islands, islets and rocks the status of which are yet undetermined are mainly the sources of dispute between the two countries.
As a matter of fact, we can observe that Turkey is not willing to have third parties interference in the decision taking process. Contrary to Greece, Turkey does not deem necessary for a dispute between Turkey and Greece to be transformed into a dispute between Turkey-EU. Similarly, EU does not wish for the dispute and conflict to be carried into the Union and has stipulated this as a condition in the acceptance of Turkey’s full membership to the Union.
The Earthquake Diplomacy
The crisis which caused the tension between the two countries after the Öcalan case soon after turned into a friendly dialogue process. At this point the USA’s mediation which could not be disregarded, has been useful for the current governments to conceive that their interest lay in cooperation. In the Öcalan case, the role played by some political figures and high level bureaucrats hindered way to a serious hindered the dialogue process which was being formed at the time. This has resulted in Greece’s reconsidering the tactic /strategic evaluations in the decision taking process. Parallel to the governmental measures Greece removed the figures who were contrary to co-operation with Turkey, and changed the discourse which until then was used while referring to its national security issues. The support given to the divisive terrorist movement of PKK in the South-eastern of Turkey hindered the credibility of this country and lessened its respectability from Turkey’s point of view. This situation has also revealed another fact for the two countries; Greece has made a tactical fault, which could bring the two countries on the edge of war by trying to deal with the problematic issues between the two countries in an illicit manner. These tactics could easily discard the pretence and approach that until then Greece had been adopting: “the threat comes from the east”. Since, Greece has supported PKK attacks in North Iraq, the Greek Cyprus Government and also the islands on the Aegean by furnishing means to facilitate their actions. This has rendered legitimate all Turkey’s endeavours to protect its national security.
When Greece saw that the tactic/strategic measures adopted up to that point were harming the main cause, it decided to change its approach to a peaceful, co-operative political one. In fact, soon after, they have left the concrete problems they were facing and started to deal with tourism, terror, environment, cultural problems and trade, which were issues that would build confidence and co-operation among the two countries. In this respect some meetings in Athens and Ankara were held. The correspondence between the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ý. Cem and the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs G. Papandreou is interesting in its indicating the desire to cooperate of the political figures of the two countries.[55] The views that were expressed in the letter written by Ý. Cem on the 24 May clearly underlined the sensitivity that Turkey infers on terrorism and that in order relations between Turkey and Greece to be friendly, it is necessary to take an action against it. It has also been expressed that such an act would be facilitating the process whereby the two parties gained mutual trust and confidence. On the other hand, besides the sensitivity that was demonstrated with respect to issues regarding national security, Turkey has also stressed the fact that it is open to a peaceful dialogue and solution, thus emphasising its will as to the initiation of this process between the two countries. The Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs Papandreou, in his letter dated the 25 June, stated that the positive development in the relations between the two countries was also what Greece desired and that the commencement of the attempts and endeavours of the past would add the process. In this perspective, tourism, culture, environment, crime, economical co-operation and ecological problems would be items of co-operation between the two countries.
This dialogue, initiated between the two ministers was an enterprise, which got the support of the national and international public opinion as well as the USA, NATO and EU. The significance of the positive development of the relationship between these two countries with respect to the accord and welfare of the Balkan countries was stressed. The search and endeavour of a warmer relationship in June-July 1999 has also reflected itself to the press, and conveyed it to the public opinion. Furthermore, the press also expressed the doubts regarding the continuation of such positive relations. Nevertheless, these doubts did not turn into a opinion that the endeavours were in vain. The Kardak Rocks, the S-300 depression and the Öcalan case, which created tension in the relationship, resulted in pressure exerted by the NATO and USA for efforts at reconciliation. In addition to this, there have been certain developments, which increased the liberty of action of the political powers of the two countries. One of these happenings was the earthquake disaster that struck Gölcük/Marmara region on 17 August 1999. After this disaster Greece joined in the rescue and search operations of other European countries. This sad opportunity increased the faith of the Turkish public opinion in the victory of solidarity and co-operation over antagonist politics.
When the case is
analysed with respect to the national identities and characters, the fact that the pain
and suffering that the people encountered in their daily lives was shared, solutions and
aid was offered, which affected the image of Greece from being an “enemy” to a
“friend”. No doubt, this sort of evaluation brings with itself the problem of
generalisation. In Turkey and Greece there are some nationalistic fanatics who regard the
relationship of the two countries from this ideological perspective but, also there are
people who believe and understand that the discord is not between the people and the
nations but between the governments. There were some goodwill and solidarity messages
exschanged between the two countries, forgetting the controversies and bringing to the
foreground the feelings of humanly help and support. From the very first day of the
earthquake, aid campaigns were initiated in Greece and Greek government sent a
search/salvage team right away “200 tents with
doctors and nurses, 1000 blankets and 12 tonnes of every sort of aid” to Turkey[56]
The humane approach that was displayed in the Greek press and news regarding the
disaster was also watched with interest by the Turkish public opinion and was appreciated.
On the other hand, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pangalos declared that there
was a direct relationship between the incidents after the earthquake and Turkey’s
membership to the EU: “The Marmara earthquake has
shown that Turkey is not ready to become a member of the EU yet. There have been 15
thousand deaths and 30 thousand are still missing. This tableau has demonstrated that the
government mechanism does not function properly in Turkey and the circumstances being what
they are, Turkey is not only unfit to become a member of the EU but it has not matured
yet.”[57] The article titled “ Whereas the Pain of the Enemy Made Us Cry”,
written by Anna Stergiou in the Eleftheropia, a national newspaper, is an
interesting example which displays the common values of humanity and the fact that these
values are far from fanaticism. “Family, school
and military service…We Greeks who pass through all these institutions have been
persuaded through some historical and political examples that the Turks were our enemies
and we nourished hatred. Then how is it that this feeling of hatred and enmity, which
lasted for centuries, vanished in one day and the foe becomes a friend overnight?
We have all been struggling with
our feelings these days. We cried, were deeply moved and we suffered for them. Those
feelings of hatred and enmity literally disappeared. It was as if we did not know that we
possessed these humane feelings and we discovered them suddenly. We caught ourselves in
tears when watching how the Turks were being rescued from the demolished buildings. Those
same mothers who would shed tears in a probable Turkish-Greek war for their sons cried for
the Turks. However, the god of the earthquake does not recognize difference of culture or
nation.
When we heard the screams and moans of those who were
struck by the earthquake we felt as if we had been punched on our stomach. There is no god
of poverty and pain. For this reason we joined the lament of the Turks and we lamented as
if they were our own people. Those billions that had been spent on armament all these
years did not suffice nor serve to bring happiness nor did they prevent catastrophes from
befalling. On the contrary, this lavish and futile expenditure leaves a queer, bitter
aftertaste in our mouth when such natural disasters hit us.”[58]
Examples of help
and support between the two countries’ people within the framework of civil initiatives
were brought to the foreground by written and visual media and the feeling of solidarity
was tried to be bolstered. Within this context, civil search/rescue teams like AKUT
(Turkish Civil Search and Rescue) and EMAK of Greece, the aid campaigns to which artists
and writers of both countries participated have contributed in the transformation of those
conceptions like “enemy” and “threat” to perceptions of friendship.
Though fanatic right wing of coalition and its supporting media spread negative news, the
majority of the Turkish people received the aid offered by Greece, Bulgaria, Russia,
Armenia and Israel in gratitude and appreciation. Reciprocally, soon after, the earthquake
that hit also Athens, the Turkish General Staff ran to help the Greeks with a plane given
to the service of AKUT and this gesture has also contributed to the feelings of peace and
solidarity to flourish between the two countries.[59]
The détente that has been developed between the two countries was extended to the military field as well. Some activities that might be considered of extreme relevance in the mutual perception of the two countries’ public opinion and in the shaping of it, in terms of reforming their images were carried out so as to shape the new developing relations favourably. The fact that the Command of the Greek Naval Forces came to the ceremony on the 30 of August 1999 (Turkish National Victory Day) and following that, the fact that the celebrations on the 9 September held annually to celebrate the salvation of Izmir were not as pompous as they usually were, (the representation of salvation from Greeks was included) is indicative of the détente in the relations.
Meanwhile, another development which brought the two military forces closer is that in the NATO military operations, the Turkish forces were commanded by a Greek general and the Greek forces were commanded by a Turkish general. In the months of September and October, the differences of opinion concerning the NATO command bases, built in Ýzmir and Larissa were sorted out and the bases were opened.
After the earthquake the developments and approaches that followed were also significant to show marked differences in the tactic impediments of the two countries had been encountering. For instance, Greece has found it necessary to declare that it would not block the aid that would be given to Turkey within EU after the earthquake. Following the declaration of Greece, it was expected that one of the major stumbling blocks in Turkey’s becoming a full member to the EU was to be lifted. Actually, in October the EU proclaimed that Turkey’s full membership candidacy would be considered, but that Turkey had to take some measures take further steps. This was ample proof that the factor of Greece in creating impediments on the way to the membership to the EU still persisted.
When the fact that Turkey and Greece managed to fit into last five years all these tension building events and that in a very short time this tension left its place to a visible softening, it should be noted that the mutual consideration of the politicians of their concerns of each other has also ameliorated to some extent. Following the Kardak Crisis, on 8 July 1997, in the NATO summit that was held in Madrid, both countries accepted the Declaration and aiming to lessen the tension was an important effort. In the declaration the two parties accepted:
The Madrid Declaration is one of the serious steps taken in order to diminish the tension between the two countries but in reality is has been insufficient in the taking necessary steps to prevent the development of new tensions and for the development of relationships. Furthermore, the acceptance to adhere to the international laws and treaties is also very important, therefore when within this context, the Madrid Declaration can be accepted as a goodwill declaration wherein both countries stipulate their rights and status reciprocally.[61] After the declaration the opinion that the tension might be decreased and steps to speed up the dialogue, could be taken was marked but no visible care was rendered to reach the core of the problems.
Although the efforts to lessen the tension between
the two countries continued, it was not possible to talk of a complete success in the
efforts made to make up for the lack of trust between the two countries. The change of
equilibrium in the relationships of the two parties, as well as the changes of equilibrium
in the international systems has indicated that the tension should be replaced with
co-operation and the two countries were influenced by the changes and declarations in
which they stress that the matters of discord were to be sorted out by peaceful means.
From Turkey’s the point of view of, besides the minor problems and the major ones, what
is necessary, as stated in the Madrid Declaration was to apply the principles with
integrity, abiding closely by them. In order to achieve this, the dialogue process must
continue. In this respect, Turkey follows a rather more consistent policy compared to
Greece. In fact, after the Öcalan issue, the initiative and opinion rendered by Turkey to
restore the relations with Greece was remarkable. According to the Prime Minister, Ecevit
“First of all Greece has to renounce giving
support to these terrorists. What are we going to discuss and sort out with them if they
continue supporting the terrorists? First Greece should renounce and then it should accept the idea of handling our
problems via dialogues.”[62]
The President of the Turkish Republic, Süleyman Demirel has declared that they have 8 requests from Greece to ensure that the support had really been cut out.
“We asked
Greece to do the following: close down the camps, deliver the terrorists that are being
sought to Turkey, do not supply the terrorists with armament, put an end to all logistic
support, do not allow PKK to make propaganda that encourages people to commit crimes and
massacres, do not let them realize activities in districts and foundations, do not let PKK
terrorists cross your country, do not be a mediator in the money justifying operations.
Our aim is not to corner Greece but to help it regain its identity as a democratic country, which abides by the requisites of international law. We have no interest in calling Greece a rouge country but if Greece persists then it will indeed become such a country. The issue is not PKK, we give Greece the opportunity to clear itself in front of the international public opinion and to cut its relations with terrorism.”[63]
In this framework the opposition to Greek government stated that there should be co-operation with Turkey in the issue of terrorism. One of the former prime ministers Constantine Mitsotakis, in a declaration he made, underlined that in the last 20 years Greece had been unsuccessful in its struggle with terrorism, “This failure affects the foreign policy of Greece in a very negative way, we must sign a collaboration pact with Turkey, refusing to collaborate will render them more suspicious, whereas Greece has never supported terrorism, be it in the past or in the present.”[64] The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Papandreou, in a discussion appeared in the Kathimerini has stated that with the dialogue initiated in New York has created no change in the policy of the Greek government and that this process should have made a positive effect on the lessening of tension between the two countries. According to Papandreou, the issues that were dealt with in this dialogue process were important even if they are of little relevance to the mutual problems existing. “