Turkey's Responses to Greek Claims: Part-3

We continue to examine the Greek claims and Turkey's responses within the scope of the Arming of the Aegean Islands in Non-Military Status. In my previous article, I talked about the situation of the 'Boğazönü' islands, consisting of Lemnos and Samothrace belonging to Greece, and Imroz and Bozcaada belonging to Turkey. In today's article, I would like to talk about Saruhan Islands and Dodecanese Islands.

b. Saruhan Islands (Eastern Aegean Islands):

The Saruhan Islands, Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Nikarya, give Greece the right to have only police and gendarmerie forces on these islands, but not to establish a military base, according to Article 13 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Greek Claim:

1) According to international law, the terms in the treaties are regulated according to the existing conditions at the time the treaty was made. If there have been radical changes in the conditions, then the relevant articles of the treaty will be deemed to have been dropped (Article 13 of the Lausanne Treaty, which determines the status of Boğazönü and Saruhan Islands). The Treaty of Lausanne and Paris was also arranged according to the conditions of that day. However, II. Events until the end of World War II showed radical changes.

The first of these changes is the continuation of positive Turkish-Greek relations and the cooperation of both countries. The second one fortified the Turkish Straits by replacing the Straits Convention of the Lausanne Treaty with the 1936 Montreux Convention, on the grounds that Turkey's conditions had changed. Therefore, the articles of the Treaty of Lausanne and Paris, which included the demilitarization of the islands, were abolished automatically, according to international law, as the conditions changed.

2) The Aegean Army formed by Turkey and the amphibious forces deployed on the Aegean coasts pose a threat to the Aegean Islands. Greece armed the Saruhan Islands for self-defense. Otherwise, the Greek forces on these islands cannot pose a threat to Turkey.

Invalidity of Claim:

1) International law does not contain a provision supporting the Greek thesis. International law does not impose a provision just because the conditions have changed, the treaty has ended. Turkey implemented the thesis claimed by Greece when starting the process towards the Montreux Convention, but did not do this with a unilateral decision. Claiming that the conditions had changed, he invited all the signatory states to the Treaty of Lausanne, and eventually, by obtaining the consent of these states, he ensured the emergence of the Montreux Convention.

2) Since 1969, the islands have been openly armed by Greece. The Aegean Army was established by Turkey after the necessity seen after 1974. The fact that the islands were armed even when the Aegean Army was not present constitutes evidence for the invalidity of Greece's claim of self-defense. Besides, the Aegean Army is a small army consisting of training units. It does not have personnel, weapons and equipment that could pose a threat to Greece. It was established to fill the gap that emerged in the western part of the defense of Turkey, which is considered as a whole. The amphibious forces stationed on the Aegean coast are not a threat to the Saruhan Islands, but are the units declared to NATO, which are used for the defense of Turkey. The purpose of the amphibious units, which also participate in NATO exercises, is exhibited in the exercises.

c. The Dodecanese:

A total of 14 islands within the scope of the Dodecanese, according to the 14th article of the Paris Agreement (Turkey is not a party) signed in 1947, gave Greece the right to have only enough forces to maintain order.

Greek Claim:

1) Although the Dodecanese Islands have a status of demilitarization, Turkey is not a party to the Paris Agreement that determines this status. For this reason, Turkey is not the interlocutor of Greece regarding the demilitarization of the Dodecanese Islands.

2) In 1951, Italy began to arm itself. Therefore, the demilitarization clause of the Paris Agreement on the Dodecanese Islands should be dropped.

3) Since the 1974 Cyprus events, Turkey has been threatening the Saruhan Islands. Against such a danger, Greece may arm the islands based on the right of self-defense granted to it in Article 51 of the UN Treaty.

Invalidity of Claim:

1) The 1947 Paris Agreement is a treaty that creates an Objective Status and its terms directly concern Turkey. In addition, Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne states that the future of these islands will be determined by the agreements to be made by the 6 big states in the future. In other words, the Treaty of Lausanne had already referred to the 1947 Paris Treaty, which was signed after it. In this respect, Turkey naturally has a say in the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

2) The situation of Italy and the situation of the Dodecanese are separate issues. The reason for the demilitarization of the lands belonging to states such as Italy, Bulgaria and Hungary is that the victorious states punish these states as a result of the war and prevent them from being a threat to them again. In contrast, the Treaty of Paris stipulated a demilitarization clause when relinquishing the Dodecanese to Greece. The reason for this is that Turkey's security is considered. The situation of Italy has nothing to do with the demilitarization dimension of the Dodecanese.

3) The right of self-defense is based on the principle that a state under attack should protect itself with the same methods. Even if there is such an actual attack by Turkey against the Aegean Islands, it is necessary to apply to the Security Council first. The UN does not give any state or Greece the right to arm the Twelve Candidates in this context.

Conclusion:

Islands with non-military status do not only consist of the terrestrial parts of the islands. Islands of this type should also keep their territorial waters and airspace in non-military status. All kinds of port visits to islands in non-military status, except in cases of necessity, by warships underway, and the passage of warplanes over the airspace and/or island within the territorial waters constitute a violation of the non-military status of these islands. Greece not only disrupts the non-military status of these islands, but also exercises and/or port visits, exercise flights, etc. With these methods, it also encourages third-party countries to commit “violation crimes”.

The situation of Boğazönü, Saruhan and Dodecanese Islands, where Greece has deteriorated its non-military status in violation of international law and the Lausanne/Paris agreements, may bring along the question of “who belongs to” these islands. It is obvious that Turkey is right in this regard. Legal steps that Turkey can take to correct this situation may gain the support of the international community and may entail the obligation of Greece to withdraw the islands to non-military status in accordance with the requirements of the Lausanne/Paris agreements. Turkey's hand is strong. If Greece does not take the necessary steps, Turkey can practically demonstrate that it has the right to preemptive attack and self-defense under UN Article 51, on the grounds that military forces on these islands are a clear threat to it.

Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panayotopoulos said during an exercise in Slovakia at the beginning of June 2022, “It is strange that we have an ally who is discussing the disarmament of some of our islands and says that if they are not disarmed, they will take them. Are we going to lose their sovereignty?” His use of expressions shows that Greece is aware of the fact that Turkey is right and that it is aware of the possible steps it can take in accordance with international law.

In our tomorrow's article, I will examine the subject of territorial waters.

(To be continued)