In his address to a committee of the Turkish National Assembly, Turkish Defence Minister aggravates climate with Greece (and former Chief of the Armed Forces), General Yasar Güler, stirred tensions in bilateral relations. His extensive remarks on Turkish armaments were designed to make a bold statement. In immediate reports, there was an attempt to highlight the international shifts that Ankara hopes will work in its favour to achieve its objectives.
However, the problem for Turkey is that, despite its penchant for Orientalist-style negotiations, it is unwilling to retreat from core positions, even when they blatantly contradict international law. Ankara accuses Greece of “maximalist claims in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean”, but fails to recognise its own maximalism—violating clear international law of the sea. It continues to press for re-entry into the F-35 Lightning II programme, ignoring the fact that US law forbids this unless Turkey removes the Russian S-400 system from its arsenal.
The frequent Greek portrayal of developments as “provoked by the Turkish Defence Minister” is equally out of sync with reality on the ground. In fact, provocations have often been legitimised by the Greek side, which refuses to set clear red lines before engaging in negotiations. At no point has Greece demanded the lifting of the casus belli (cause for war) or Ankara’s prior recognition of international maritime law, which even non-signatories must adhere to. It is not conceivable that, at a time when many states that refuse to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are questioning the legality of that action, Greece, a proponent of international law, both fails to enforce its provisions and, through its actions, demonstrates the relativity of these laws.
For decades, Greece has refused to submit coordinates to the UN, an essential step to initiate maritime delimitation. It chooses to negotiate first, despite international maritime law calling for the opposite approach. The unilateral failure to extend Greece’s territorial waters to 12 nautical miles falls into the same category. In essence, submitting to the will of a country intent on altering the status quo is a violation of international law.
Turkish Defence Minister’s Provocations
Meanwhile, the handling of the situation by Turkey is outrageous, to say the least. On a day when Turkey’s Defence Minister, following the Foreign Minister’s provocations, escalated tensions, pro-government writers choose to shift focus, pointing to Greek inaction. A poll released yesterday shows that Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis, “irritated with Antonis Samaras,” argued that Greece’s national concerns were now largely focused on “national issues, relations with Turkey, and other neighbours,” a view shared by just 7% of the population. This is a marked shift from the 66% of respondents in June 2022, who expressed serious concerns over Turkey’s actions.
The Turkish Defence Minister, in defending his obstruction of the Italian research vessel operating off Casos to lay an interconnection cable with Cyprus, invokes the 1976 Berne Protocol, which banned hydrocarbon exploration in the Aegean. His remarks, including the reference to “our potential continental shelf,” highlight the lack of mutual understanding. Greece, however, refuses to submit its maritime coordinates to the UN, while Turkey has already filed its controversial and illegal Turkolibian Memorandum.
Turkey’s Claims and Military Strategy
The Turkish Defence Minister referred to Greece’s “fait accompli” on territorial issues such as Kastellorizo, which he claims Turkey is preventing. He raised concerns over demilitarisation, alluding to the potential threat posed by Greece’s presence in the eastern Aegean. He also referred to Alexandroupolis, a strategic issue of concern to Turkey.
It appears that Ankara is preparing for a full-scale negotiation, viewing the current international climate as an opportunity to press for concessions. However, it does not seem to fully appreciate that if it were to soften its position—such as agreeing to relinquish the S-400 system—the issue would no longer be with the Biden administration but with the underlying legal constraints.
Turkey’s Economic Strategy and Military Purchases
As for Turkey’s military ambitions, given the current economic reality, the Turkish government may be using its desire for advanced weaponry as a cover for its economic troubles. The decision to cancel the upgrade of 79 F-16s and shrink a potential $23 billion arms deal with the US to $7 billion aligns with Turkey’s economic needs.
By claiming that it is pursuing the F-35 and buying 40 F-16 Block 70 jets, Turkey is essentially buying time. Even if the issues were resolved tomorrow, this would be a long-term process. There is a strong possibility that Turkey may ultimately cancel the F-16 procurement as well. In dealing with the new US administration, Turkey will have to address legal challenges regarding the F-35, as well as its strained relations with Israel, the ongoing ties with Hamas, and a cabinet of officials who have openly criticised Turkish policy, especially regarding Russia and the Kurdish issue.
