Hakan Fidan, Turkish Foreign Minister, was in Athens at the weekend, with his Greek counterpart Georgios Gerapetritis. Like President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in recent times, they have multiplied declarations of good intentions, highlighting the understanding that has been in vogue since last year between their countries. But beyond these positive declarations, where is the relationship between two neighbors that history has often pitted against each other? Elements of response with the historian Joëlle Dalègre, lecturer at Inalco and author of the work A century of Greek-Turkish relationspublished by L’Harmattan.
RFI: Where are Greece and Turkey in their bilateral relationship, which is far from smooth sailing? ?
Joëlle Dalegre: If I were mean, I would say that the gestures of rapprochement belong to the theater. They decided, almost two years ago, that ultimately, it was better to be friends, and that it was better in relation to the powers to which they both court. You have to “appear nice”, so they are all very nice, they exchange visits. But once they have finished deciding that they are on the path to ” eternal friendship », referring to the Venizélos-Kemal tandem in 1930, nothing was done. From time to time, they reach agreements on the path to “ understanding » – commercial, cultural, tourism and student exchange agreements. But when it comes to what’s the problem, they either look elsewhere or find they disagree.
Is there the slightest sign that discussions are moving forward regarding major territorial disputes? ?
I have difficulty seeing how they could move forward, given that for that to happen, one would have to move backwards, and neither of them intends to do so.
In this relationship, we speak of “Exclusive Economic Zones” (EEZ), “continental shelf » (PC) or its extension, in other words, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Cnudm). The latter, which dates from the end of the 20th century, does it help to move things forward ?
There Türkiye is one of the few countries that have not signed the said convention. She therefore does not feel obliged to respect it. In the name of this convention, there is an international maritime tribunal in Hamburg, which Turkey has no reason to go to either. It remains to be understood. But if Turkey has not signed the convention, it is precisely because it believes that its application would harm it, and that it has no interest in it.
There is indeed the court in The Hague, where the Greece would agree to go to present the situation, but on the condition that we talk about her EEZ only, because she believes that on other questions, she has the right for her, therefore nothing to discuss. However, Turkey only wants to participate on the condition that we talk about all the issues. As no one moves, we stay at the same point. It should be noted that each of the two leaders is dealing with a public opinion that has long been accustomed to seeing things in a certain way, and which on each side would have difficulty accepting setbacks.
Isn’t this need to satisfy, on these themes, the electoral base of each country less sensitive today for the two powers in place? ?
It’s less sensitive in the sense, I would say, that public opinion in both countries has more serious problems, that it’s not their primary concern. On the other hand, it is perhaps sensitive in the sense that in both countries, now, there is still a fairly strong nationalist extreme right. Each of the two more or less needs the votes of this extreme right, we must not completely anger it either.
Also readAfter Erdogan’s visit to Greece in December, Mitsotakis in turn in Türkiye
In August 2020, the gas issue created an incident, with the intrusion into the waters that Greece considers its own of a prospecting vessel accompanied by Turkish military vessels. Even on gas, don’t you think they could agree to share resources ?
The gas question also includes the problem of Cyprusgiven that the large deposits are in its waters. And the problem with the EEZ is that if we apply the famous 200 nautical miles provided for each country at the time in Montegothe EEZs of Cyprus and Greece may come to touch each other. Turkey disputes the extent of the two EEZs, moreover.
Greece and Turkey are members of NATO. What is the role of the United States in this attempt at normalization? Do they want Ankara and Athens to mute their disagreements ?
Since the mid-1950s, the United States has intervened every ten years to try to calm both parties and prevent the tone from rising to the point of anything worse than insults. They continue, especially since the region is not far from the Black Sea and everything that interests them in the sector. At the same time, the Americans sell weapons to everyone and that doesn’t make them so unhappy.
President Erdogan’s attitude and phraseology did not help matters for a long time. He has a double talk: when he addresses a somewhat international audience, he is calm, but when he addresses his inner opinion, the vocabulary is cruder. He reminds us once a year that he can throw the Greeks into the sea like in 1922, that in one night he can invade a Greek island if he wants – which is true. This does not seem to worry the great powers, but on the other hand, it is sure that it worries the Greeks quite seriously.
Especially as we can clearly see, the policy of fait accompli, the law of the strongest, has not really changed since La Fontaine. For 50 years, Turkish troops have been installed in Cyprus while officially, every year or almost, a resolution of theUN just confirms that they shouldn’t be there.
Without going back to Greek independence in 1821, or beyond, there is still today a whole generation marked by the exile of families, or remained in Türkiye, moreover. The trauma remains alive ?
Greek independence is only 200 years old, and the story began with an insurrection. All the territories that Greece recovered at that time, it took back from the Ottoman Empire, just as the latter became Turkey in 1923 following a total military victory against the Greeks. It’s already off to a bad start! National holidays celebrate either the liberation of one or the defeat of the other. There is a whole series of commemorations on each side which, in general, are more or less poorly supported, in the name of honor, by the neighbor. School programs have adopted this line. As for the people expelled from Türkiye in 1922, let’s not forget that at the time, they represented 1/5 of Greece. Suddenly imagine that France13 million people fall from the sky in one year.
In football, some Greek clubs are Turkish exile clubs…
Yes, they reconstituted themselves as they were before leaving, with the same name. And the associations of descendants of refugees work very well too, people continue to say “ I am a refugee » to the third or fourth generation. But these are often the people who are also the most interested in Turkey, who travel there. Their grandparents kept the nostalgia of the place, that of their “country”, the one we have under the soles of our shoes, right in front of us, even if it ended badly. They cultivated being Greek, but conveyed love and regret for the lost country, and then passed that on.
Does the religious question weigh heavily today? ? Under the leadership of Tayyip Erdogan, Hagia Sophia (Hagia Sophia) has notably become a mosque again, among other changes, while Turkish citizens remain Orthodox.
The latter lived for centuries under the Ottoman Empire, where religions coexisted, each in its own sector, with the common rule that the affairs of others were not touched as long as they were submissive subjects. There wasn’t really any proselytizing.
For its part, Greece completely ignores “French-style” secularism. People can be Muslims, walking down the street in all the right clothing, it doesn’t bother them as long as they stay in their corner, even if deep down, we consider that they will never be Greeks quite like them. everyone. On the other hand, Mustafa Kemal’s successors expelled the Greeks from Istanbul, but as members of a foreign nation. Ultimately, the fact that they were Orthodox Christians did not bother them too much.
The Greeks were shocked by the transformation of the Hagia Sophia and the two or three other ancient churches turned into mosques. There aren’t many Orthodox Greeks in Istanbul anymore to attend churches, but it’s a symbol, that’s for sure. It was Atatürk who decided to turn them into museums.
When we analyze Greek-Turkish relations, we often talk about two treaties, Sèvres in 1920, and Lausanne in 1923, shortly before the proclamation of modern Turkey by Mustafa Kemal. Why do we always come back to it? ?
Sèvres was the last treaty signed at the end of the First World War, and at one point, all the States had only one desire: to quickly get rid of it. The fall of the Ottoman Empire did not only concern Greece or Turkey, but the entire Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. It was a question of who would get what, and how. What was decided at Sèvres, the great powers themselves knew well that it did not hold. None have ratified or even proposed ratification to their Parliament.
There was a problem, and it showed up right away. Sèvres, for the Turks, is the height of humiliation, and for the Greeks, the height of victory. As for Lausanne, in 1923, it was practically the opposite, and it is this treaty which still regulates the current questions of borders, minorities, and a whole series of other things like the question of the straits, even if the latter is rather dealt with internationally and does not specifically concern Greece. Greece does not border the straits. That’s Turkey’s great asset.
Also readCyprus: an island divided between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots for 50 years
What role does Greece play in gradually moving away from any prospect of its neighbor joining the EU? ?
In its great crisis, it made beautiful gestures in the light of the 21st century. She stopped vetoing Turkey’s entry into theEuropean Union. But I suspect she is counting on others to veto her for her. Cyprus, for example. And I’m not sure either that all the countries of “ex-central” Europe are very willing. I wonder if Greece didn’t decide at the time to stop playing the role of the bad guy.
You present Greece as a very clever little entity.
The various Prime Ministers are aware that they administer 10 million inhabitants, and that the Turks opposite are 85 million. Erdogan has been here for more than 20 years. He had time to establish not only his power, but also institutions. He created a fleet, developed a blockbuster drone. The Greeks may be buying new planes and boats, but given the fairly limited width of the Aegean Sea and the range of drones, I end up wondering if it’s worth breaking the bank. I’m afraid the Greeks don’t even have time to use it in case of conflict.
What can we expect in the future between these two countries?
The Cnudm says that in the case of a closed or almost closed sea, a narrow space, the protagonists must negotiate. Well, it is obvious that in the current state of things, it seems difficult. Negotiation takes on a haggling aspect. But to the extent that the Greeks and Turks decided to stick with this status quo and be careful, that’s the main thing. The first time they decided they were going to get along a little was just before the start of a summer, they couldn’t ruin the tourist season. If it helps to make everyone a little more serious… It’s a long-term affair, war won’t be declared tomorrow. And both countries have other problems on a domestic level. Maybe it can help these boys stay wise and reasonable.