How could these countries explain to their people why they made such generous compromises to Greece and Greek Cypriots while for their own national interests it was far better to cooperate with Turkey?
By YUSUF KANLI
The memorandum of understanding signed between Libya’s U.N.-supported government and Turkey on maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean infuriated Greece.
The deal has created a new political map in the Eastern Mediterranean, according to Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister Ersin Tatar, an evaluation shared by many people and probably one of the reasons that enraged Athens.
The Turkish-Libyan sea boundaries were swiftly approved by the Turkish Parliament, as well as the U.N.-endorsed Presidential Council of Libya and consequently, the U.N. was officially informed about the accord; completing its ratification and making it an international law document. Why was Greece so angered by a Turkish-Libyan deal? One fundamental reason was, of course, the collapse of the greedy and expansionist plans of Greece in the Mediterranean, making best use of the tumultuous situation in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon and Syria.
Could it be rational for any democratically elected government in any of these countries to succumb to Greek and Greek Cypriot greed and accept to place under their control hundreds if not thousands of kilometers square of the Mediterranean Sea that ought to be within their naval borders?
Now, maps are floating around showing what ought to be the territorial waters of Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Israel and how seriously Greece and the Greek Cypriot state advanced and capitulated on those areas.
If Greek designs were to be accepted, not only Turkey would be cut off from access to international waters but its exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean would be just 41,000 square kilometers, whereas it ought to be 189 square kilometers. Greece, aware of the collapse of the hostile web it so painfully created in the Mediterranean together with Egypt, Israel and Greek Cypriots, is now crying, yelling and like a spoiled child trying to activate the EU, using the club solidarity clause.
It is no secret that by making a territorial median delimitation with Athens by taking a Greece-Libya median line as the boundary of its exclusive economic area, it would agree to have one-fifth of what indeed it ought to have, down from 101,606.67 square kilometers should it take the median line with Turkey, to 29,623.77 square kilometers.
There is a serious political instability and a civil war in Libya, but could anyone agree to such a huge surrender of national interest? Claiming that Turkey blackmailed the Libyan government against the rebel elements – unlawfully cooperated with by some EU countries, including Greece and France – can only be a very bad joke.
With Egypt, the situation is “far better” as the amount of sea territory Cairo is seceding to Greece would be 15,000 square kilometers and to Greek Cypriot state 21,300 square kilometers more than what it ought to have should it accept the territorial median line with Turkey, rather than that with Greece. Israel, likewise, paid a price of seceding 4,600 square kilometers to the Greek Cypriot state by agreeing to have a median line with Cyprus, rather than with Turkey.
How could these countries explain to their people why they made such generous compromises to Greece and Greek Cypriots while for their own national interests it was far better to cooperate with Turkey?
Why is Greece crying? Is it not obvious? Its greed to make the best use of the difficulties of its sea neighbors collapsed into a wall with Turkey’s Libya action.
