No matter how much we try to hide it, reality speaks for itself. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs under George Gerapetritis seems unable to find its footing. Gerapetritis’ Blunder: The phrase that diminished Greek diplomacy.
Although diplomacy relies on precise language, at times they appear to have fallen out even with plain Greek. Yesterday, the Greek Foreign Minister’s reply to his Turkish counterpart again left us embarrassed and uneasy.
The Greek statement: “Greece pursues an active and consistent foreign policy based on the universal values of international law and is not defined by others. It will not deviate from these principles, and whoever is disturbed must accept it. Greece seeks peace and good neighbourly relations, yet on issues of national interest, there can be no discussion.”
Our attention was immediately caught by “on issues of national interest, there can be no discussion.” The phrasing is at best problematic, if not reckless. What does it mean, stated so vaguely and absolutely? If it referred to sovereignty, it might be reasonable; even sovereign rights would make sense. But international maritime law itself provides clear procedures for delimiting Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) when neighbouring states are involved.
Wasn’t there a conclusion with Egypt after negotiations, with Greece conceding around 17.5% of Crete’s maritime influence? Declaring “no discussion” on national interests contradicts international law. If Gerapetritis meant to criticise the previous government under Nikos Dendias, he should say so openly. It’s legitimate to debate whether concessions were wise—but not years later.
A genuine national interest would be securing full effect for the Kastellorizo complex and EEZ borders between Greece and Cyprus.
Yet this requires understanding with Turkey, which refuses even partial effect. Discussion, however minimal, is essential—something the Ministry’s phrasing rejects. Even international arbitration requires negotiation to draft a joint submission. So what does “no discussion” mean
When this same government has already made concessions to Egypt, it fails to see that this sets a precedent for Kastellorizo. If there is to be no discussion, how do they intend to secure national interests—by force, as Turkey does? Let’s recall that extending territorial waters is a unilateral right. Most countries have done so; Greece merely “reserves” it without acting. And one cannot speak of EEZs without first extending territorial waters.
How then does this align with the claim that Greek foreign policy “is based on the universal values of international law”? Avoiding legal rights out of fear of Turkey is being defined by others.
As for Turkish FM Hakan Fidan’s remarks on the SAFE mechanism and European security, Athens should have replied that national security precedes collective security. It should also have reminded him that any “anti-Turkish sentiment” stems from the casus belli threat Turkey maintains over Greece. In Greece, Turks are welcome and safe—breathing an air of freedom absent in authoritarian regimes.
In short, Athens’ rhetoric makes little sense. The Foreign Ministry’s statement leaves one with mixed feelings—pity for the decline of Greek diplomacy and concern about its competence.
