The Eastern Mediterranean and its role in history

The eastern Mediterranean has become the epicentre of the great geopolitical movements of recent times. It is true that this area has always been a focus of conflict and a generator of tensions that in one way or another ended up being reflected in other regions. But until now it had never taken the leading role it has today as a fundamental element of the game board or as a place where disputes and issues that can change the course of history are settled. 

To say this may be exaggerated, but when one pays attention to the issues at stake, to the actors directly involved and to those who in one way or another have interests on one side or the other, the panorama that appears before our eyes is shocking. It seems as if history, in one of those twists with a certain air of sarcasm, reminds us that right in that area we have the cradle of civilization and the greatest empires that humanity has ever known were born, and that in a way it is reclaiming its place.

Among the movements that can be observed, there is one that is particularly worrying for Europe and its various supranational organisations. Few could have imagined the role that Turkey would play in taking advantage of the evolution of the situation. Its involvement has progressed upwards to become the main actor and key element capable of causing unprecedented destabilisation not only in the area of its interest, but in the whole of Europe, in the European Union and in NATO. In fact, there are already voices that claim that if the Ottoman country goes further it could lead to the de facto dissolution of the Alliance.

This assertion may be somewhat exaggerated, but a deep and serious crisis would be more than likely, and of course, coinciding in time with the dark clouds that are approaching from the east via Belarus would cause a scenario that is at the very least worrying. Let us not forget that we are at a time when anyone who has certain aspirations and considers himself to have political influence and sufficient military muscle is waiting for circumstances to offer him his chance. 

In the previous work, it became clear what the basis of Turkey's current foreign policy is and the foundations of the "Mavi Vatam" or "Blue Fatherland" doctrine. But the Ankara government seems determined to go further and implement its aspirations at all costs, and in order to try to find some explanation it is important to mention certain factors. The first and fundamental one is necessity. As masterfully described by Santiago Modéjar (@intelogia) in his article, despite appearances, the Turkish economy is suffering enormous difficulties and it is vital for the country to acquire the resources necessary to provide it with that longed-for energy independence which will at the same time enable it to clean up its economy and continue with its technological and industrial development.

Alongside this need is Turkey's perception that the old threats have changed. The bloc war and the threat of a USSR at the gates of its borders that placed it on the frontline pushed Turkey into the arms of NATO, making it a fundamental part of this organisation both because of its geographical location and because of its imposing army, one of the two most numerous of the Alliance's continental members. But the possibility of a Soviet invasion is long overdue, and differences and even confrontation with today's Russia are being settled on other battlefields and other scenarios.

Another factor to take into account is the migration problem. The war in Syria pushed thousands of refugees, not only Syrians, but many other nationalities who took advantage of the chaotic situation, and victims of the mafias, to seek the European dream. And the European Union had to go to Turkey in search of help as an element of containment of an unstoppable avalanche. The Ottoman country took advantage of the situation to obtain help and support, but at the same time it became aware of the enormous power that this situation gave it.

To this must be added Turkey's profound knowledge of the dynamics of the EU and of the enormous difficulties it presents, with few exceptions, in achieving a rapid, unanimous and forceful response to any issue, and much more so in the current situation in which the pandemic not only leads member countries to look out for their own interests, but also complicates any joint decision. This is especially true in matters affecting security and economic interests that a priori only have a direct impact on some of the members.

Finally, there is one element that is not usually taken into account but that has its weight in the mentality of the current Turkish leadership. In the past, and on various occasions and in various circumstances, Turkey has knocked on the doors of the EU asking that consideration be given to the possibility of starting the procedures to take the steps that would lead to its admission into the Union. These calls have always been answered with very diplomatic refusals, but the reality is that they are perfectly aware that this refusal is definitive. And the result is a mixture of frustration and resentment. 

So what are the reasons for Turkey to backtrack on its actions and aspirations? The latest episode in this escalation is marked by the displacement of the ship Oruc Reis, which is responsible for carrying out seismic surveys with a view to locating possible gas deposits, in the vicinity of the Greek island of Kastellorizo. These waters are a cause of dispute between the two countries.

To make clear its intentions, the ship is accompanied by several warships with a clear message that Turkey will not allow its work to be interrupted. Greece has approached the European Union, but as expected, a joint and decisive response is being sought. Surveys are being carried out in an area where disputes between Turkey, Greece and Israel are not unusual.

The escort of the Oruc Reis is not insignificant, no less than five ships belonging to the Turkish Naval Force. And Greece has displaced its own naval units to monitor its activities and preserve its sovereign waters, something which has inevitably increased tension. Turkey, for its part, announced that its activities in the area would take place between 10 and 23 August. Such an announcement should not only be seen as a way of "warning" the countries in the area, but also as a way of "obliging" themselves. By announcing the start and end period, any interruption in the work would be seen as a victory for Greece in this case, and therefore by setting a completion date they are marking a point of no return.

They will not accept anything that will prevent them from reaching it. Proof of this is the statement by Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu that Turkey will continue with its exploration activities in the eastern Mediterranean and that it will under no circumstances renounce its rights. He added that Ankara will grant new permits for prospecting in the western part of its continental platform from the end of August. If we try to limit the main players in this matter we must stick to Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus and Israel.

Greece's first response, seeking alliances and support, has been to sign an agreement with Egypt to establish a joint exclusive economic zone in the region. This is obviously viewed with suspicion by Ankara. Similarly, Greece, Cyprus and Egypt have already denounced the treaty between Turkey and the GNA that included agreements on security matters.

What is interesting is Tayyip Erdogan's attitude, which could be described as that of the firefighter arsonist. After Greece's protests to the EU asking for some kind of joint reaction, he stated that "they should all act as Mediterranean countries, seeking formulas that protect the rights of all". He added: "We cannot allow other nations to ignore a great country like Turkey and try to keep it constrained within its coastal limits". This sounds like a warning, but it could also be interpreted as a message of leadership making clear its claim to be the regional power.

Another element that cannot be overlooked and that could have acted as a catalyst for the Turkish drift is the agreement signed in January between Greece, Cyprus and Israel to carry out the gas pipeline project that will run from the eastern Mediterranean to European territory. This project is strongly opposed by Ankara, as it directly clashes with their aspirations. The origin of this confrontation can be found in Cyprus. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not internationally recognised, but Turkey claims all its rights for itself, and this includes both territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone. And the gas fields that would give rise to this pipeline are within the island's exclusive economic zone. That is why Ankara is claiming its share of those fields.

But in return, the agreement signed between Turkey and the GNA establishes an economic zone that enters into direct collision with Greece, since within it are the islands of Crete and Rhodes.
As can be seen, Turkey is playing on the one hand with the "undefined" or unresolved situation of Cyprus and on the other with the strength given to it by its role in the conflict in Libya, putting the dispute over the waters of two important islands such as Rhodes and Crete on the table as a piece of negotiation to obtain revenue from the gas fields in Cyprus. And all this backed by its own "Blue Fatherland" strategic agenda.

Therefore, we can identify three fundamental points of origin of a dispute for the control of waters potentially rich in energy resources: Kastellorizo, Crete and Rhodes and Cyprus. Depending on how international regulations are interpreted and the validity of the different agreements, the balance can be clearly tipped in favour of one or the other of the contenders. One thing, however, cannot be forgotten, and that is Turkey's firm determination not to be the loser of the game, and this is a very important and dangerous factor.

The incidents confirmed to us but announced by Turkey which would have affected sports or recreational boats which are being harassed or even attacked, as it were, by Greek warships should put us on our guard. Such alleged acts by Greece could serve as justification for a greater and even permanent presence of Turkish ships in the area, which would be tantamount to an occupation of the land in a land-based confrontation. For future negotiations, this would mean a position of strength: "if I occupy the land, it is not a question of who owns it, but how we agree that I should vacate it and what I get in return". This is simply a fundamental change in the rules of the game.

A change that brings face to face the one we said a few lines above was the largest army of the continental NATO countries with the second largest. By now it is obvious why both Greece and Turkey had and still have such disproportionate armed forces in proportion to their other allies, and the former USSR was not the reason. In this section on military power, reference must be made to an element that in the future may tip the balance of what is happening. 

Today, all Turkish naval movements are being carefully monitored by the Greek submarine weapon, which so far maintains a certain technological superiority. But in the course of this year the balance will change with the entry into service of the six new German-built submarines built for the Turkish naval force. The change will be decisive, and at this stage of the situation this type of factor counts for a lot.

To conclude our analysis we must refer to the international implications. The war in Libya has directly confronted France with Turkey, with France allied with Greece. And this war and the interests it generates have created a de facto division within the EU and therefore NATO, aligning Spain, Italy and Malta on one side, if not with Turkey, then with the theses against applying sanctions for their attitude. And on the other hand, Greece, France and Cyprus against the Ottoman country.

This is a totally undesirable situation because of the consequences it can have within both organisations, and because of the opportunity that this division offers to other actors with strong interests on the eastern border who are once again simply waiting for their chance. It is inevitable to look back and see how certain alliances or "sympathies" between nations come about almost exactly the same way as they did a little over a hundred years ago. History has that charming point of irony and men have that detestable tendency to forget.