Talk:Aegean dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aegean dispute article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Aegean dispute:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Aegean dispute, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Contents

[edit] Article move?

Hi, I'm thinking of doing some rewrite/expansion on this article some time in the future. Before I get seriously started, I thought I'd get some feedback for a page move I'd propose: change Aegean crisis to Aegean conflict (or Aegean dispute perhaps?) "Crisis", in the proper sense of the word, refers to a single short, dramatic event, but the Aegean problem we're dealing with here is in reality a long-standing, lingering problem more or less stable over several decades. So, "crisis" simply doesn't fit. Also, I guess this would remove the awkwardness of attributing the whole term to one side alone, as it's now stated ("a term coined by the Greek government" etc.). I'm not sure that "crisis" is really a term only the Greek side has introduced, or even that it is the preferred term used by the Greek side, but "conflict", "dispute" or "problem" is certainly neutral enough that it fits WP:NPOV without any such hedging?

What do you guys think? Lukas 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a move is approporate. and article needs to be expanded greatly, this should be about all issues between Turkey and Greece. How about merging it to Greco-Turkish relations? --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd considered that too, but I think the complex of the Aegean issues is still so "self-contained", as it were, and at the same time so multi-faceted, that it can have an article of its own. The Greco-Turkish relations now deal with a lot of history, starting from the Ottoman era and the War of Independence, and there's still the Cyprus issue, the minorities, the EU, the PKK - lots of topics for the other article to deal with. -- You may have noticed I recently re-worked Imia/Kardak quite radically, and that alone is quite big too. In this page here, we should treat:
* Territorial waters (6 vs. 12 nm.)
* Airspace (6 vs. 10 vs. 12 nm.)
* FIR delimitation (middle or east of Aegean)
* FIR significance for military flights
* Continental shelf
* Demilitarized status of islands
* "Grey zones" (might be factored out of Imia/Kardak and moved here.
Lukas 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article would be great, as the Aegean Crisis (or whatever we wish to call it) is a rather obscure fact to most media, and even to Greeks and Turkish people themselves, as the national media generally offer their own versions of the facts. E.g., being Greek, the version I hear most is that Greece is "poor and misunderstood" about the issue by everyone, including NATO itself, and that Turkey diminisces the whole matter in a condescending kind of way, more or less stating that "it exists only in our little worried Greek minds" :-). The crisis/dispute DOES exists, and it has led to contraddictions within NATO e.g. can a NATO country (Turkey) attack another NATO country (Greece) as it has often threatened to do so? Can a NATO country shoot down "enemy" planes of another NATO country for allegedly violating their own airspace, without consequences? The Aegean Crisis (or whatever...) really deserves a separate and very comprehensive article (I only created it long ago hoping it would eventually be expanded, but until now there was quite a lack of constructive feedback). Regarding who coined the name: all Turkish governments to date deny that there's any real "crisis" or "dispute", and that it's a kind of collective hysteria in Greece, so I don't know what the official Turkish or NATO name for the matter is. As a side note, "Aegean crisis" (Κρίση στο Αιγαίο) was also the name of an old Greek strategy videogame (ca. 1995-1996), regarding the issue.


Uhm...about the page move...I'd say move it only if you discover what the official NATO term for it is (assuming that NATO doesn't take the matter as lightly as it seems) , and expand it to include not only general info but specific incidents with a bi-partisan view (Greek and Turkish). EpiVictor 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page title

Okay, here we go about a new page title. I checked "Aegean conflict": 140 GHits. "Aegean dispute": 9,390 GHits. Both are used in neutral, international scholarship, and informally by both Turkish and Greek sources. Counter to what EpiVictor wrote above, Turkish government sources are quite vocal about the existence of an "Aegean dispute". On the contrary, Greek government policy has sometimes tried to disparage the use of dispute (or presumably conflict, for that matter, too), like here:

"The only legitimate dispute that needs to be settled between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean is the delimitation of the Aegean continental shelf. […] Beyond this, all other matters at times termed 'Aegean disputes' by Turkey consist exclusively of arbitrary claims against Greek sovereignty put forth by Turkey" [1]

I'm not sure we can take that into account, though, at least not in the title. How are we to write an article if the topic of the article doesn't even exist? If we were to follow the Greek government on this, it would not be just a matter of replacing one term with another, it would be a matter of denying that the topic even exists. -- Question to EpiVictor: what, according to your feeling, is the most common Greek term? "Ζητήματα του Αιγαίου"? "Προβλήματα του Αιγαίου"? "Ζητήματα" ('issues') seems quite common, including in official sources and mainstream media. Would it be exceedingly unfair to translate "ζητήματα" as "disputes" here?

As for "official" NATO terminology, I found nothing, and I doubt it exists. However, sources close to, e.g., American politics or military freely use "dispute" too.

My own view is still that "dispute" is a neutral enough term and just fits the facts. If there wasn't a dispute, i.e. a set of seriously conflicting claims held by two sides, then we wouldn't be here talking about this. (The Greek view reported above is just a rhetorical trick, trying to re-define its own claims into some kind of self-evident default position.) - That said, I'd like to point out that I'm not going to be Greek-bashing over this article all the time. I do have a POV of my own, and it's probably fair to state that at the outset - it's actually pretty much pro-Greek, on most, though not all, the Aegean issues. Lukas 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to go with dispute then, seems neutral enough to me too. BTW, in Greece we don't usually refer to those facts under one name, but news generically refer to them like "Turkish activity in the Aegean" (quite mild), "Disturbances", up to "Turkish provocations in the Aegean", "Another provocative act by the Turks" etc. etc. I bet the Turkish use similar terms for us :-)

The term Aegean Crisis appears, indeed, a bit eschatological and is not used very often in mass media (well, except from that old video game title, and some military/defense magazines). Btw... "ζητήματα" sounds a bit too generic and bland, as it would imply other problems, not necessarily related to Greek-Turkish relations, while "crisis" or better "dispute" renders better both the nature and severity of the argument.

Other than that, "dispute" seems right because there are indeed disputed territories and borders involved, as well as connections with other interests and matters (e.g. during the Cyprus Reunification Referendum, at least Greek media reported an increased number of airspace violations and "provocative military manuevers" by part of the Turkish army, which render those "disputes", in fact, a subtle psychological tactic and a way to keep the opponent (us?) under alert. It's not uncommon to see in the news images of Greek fighter aircraft having missile-locked Turkish fighter aircraft during the so-called "virtual dogfights", at least on a weekly basis. EpiVictor 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay folks, then, let's do it. I made a start with a proposal for a new intro, and a set of section stubs for a structural outline. I also did the page move. Thanks to you both for the constructive comments, this looks as if it was going to be a good collaborative atmosphere. Lukas 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source and POV flags

You may have noticed I've been putting up {{fact}} tags throughout the new sections. Please bear with me until I have an opportunity of digging out those sources, as I'm currently working partly from memory. As for CoolCat's {{POV}} tag, I'll leave it there for the moment -- CoolCat, just remove it any time when you're satisfied the article is moving in a good direction. Lukas 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Greek settlement programmes

I'm including, for the time being, a short passage on Greek settlement programmes. This is from memory. I cannot for the life of me now find the relevant references, neither about what exactly the Greek programme was, nor about exactly what was said on the Turkish side and by whom. Unfortunately, most of the Turkish government's online publications made after the Kardak crisis have been taken offline (which is interesting in itself, actually.) - If anybody finds anything, I'd be grateful, otherwise we might have to pull that section.

[edit] Random assortment of Google references, for later use

  • ^  Frank Brenchley (1990): Aegean and Cyprus: Aegean Conflict and the Laws of the Sea. Research Institute for the Study of Conflict & Terrorism. ISBN: 0948879394.
  • ^  Andrew Wilson (1979): The Aegean dispute. International Institute for Strategic Studies. ISBN: 0860790304.
  • ^  Tolga Bilgic, Petros Karatzas (2004): "The contraction in Greece-Turkey-EU triangle: Rapprochements at the edges." Online article
  • ^  Stergios Arapoglou (2002): Dispute in the Aegean Sea: The Imia/Kardak crisis. Research thesis, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Online version
  • ^  Tozun Bahcheli, Theodore A. Couloumbis, Patricia Carley (1997): "Greek-Turkish Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy: Cyprus, the Aegean, and Regional Stability." (Peaceworks 17). United States Institute of Peace. Online paper
  • ^  Yücel Acer: "Recent Developments and Prospect for Settlement of the Aegean Disputes Through Dialogue". The Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-03-05. Online article.

[edit] The crises today

The thing has really died down. And no NATO does not interfere with the relations between Greece and Turkey although neither Turkey nor Greece gotten involved in any hot wars either that prompted NATO interference.

The dispute is basicaly Greece and Turkey making demands to each other and neither side accepting in a nutshell. This article has abit too much greek pov I think. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, about the Greek POV, could you be a bit more specific about what passages you'd like changed? - As for the conflict having "died down" and both sides just "making demands on each other", that's more or less the stuff for the last section that has yet to be filled in. In my perception, the conflict is still perceived as very much alive at least in Greek public opinion, and in Turkey there was a lot of media coverage as late as 2004 about the publication that outlined the "grey zones" claims. On the official, diplomatic level, the tactical stalemate of the 90s seems to have given way to a kind of gentlemen's agreement to not move. That was after, during the EU preparation, Turkey had come close to agreeing to Greece's old demand to go to court in The Hague, but then Greece under its new government made a last-minute U-turn and The Hague was cancelled. This was discussed in Greek media fairly extensively in 2004/05. And of course, the everyday issue of using daily statistics of Turkish flight activities as a kind of oracle to gauge the political stance of the Turkish military leadership is very much alive too. Lukas 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly uncited stuff pending citation should not be there, it is mostly gossip generated because of the tentions. While yes that is the popular beliefs I dont find them encyclopedic. That however is just my pov. Perhaps all should be commented out untill citation.
This would mean that Greece would gain the economic rights to almost the whole of the Aegean. uncited info does not see citation. Any map can show that greek islans spawn through out the Agean I think.
Too many blue links.
Too many red links. Some red links are about a terminology I am not familiar with. A stub for these must be created for the confused masses.
after the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and various other aggressive acts committed by Turkey, re-armament is an act of legitimate self-defence. isnt npov. Ill leave it to your capable hands.
Greek islands in grey zones should have a Turkish name.
Cited sources. They all are from sources that are supporting the greek pov. "Turkish army denial of the violations" is a pov source me thinks. We want sources that are more netural form educational sources perhaps. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Your points one by one:
(a) "uncited stuff pending citation": not gossips, that's from reliable sources I have here, in many cases the Turkish ones. As I said, I just have to dig out the exact references from my library, as I was working from memory, and I asked for a bit of patience. Only exception, as I said above, is the story about the settlement programme - and that one I put in basically in order to please the Turkish POV, because to the best of my memory Turkish sources were the only ones ever to raise that issue; a Greek POV would be that this was never an issue at all. I personally would have no problem about leaving this out.
(b) if by "uncited stuff" and "gossips" you mean the bits about Greek lake vs. Half the Aegean: just google for "Ege" and "Yunan gölü", or "το μισό Αιγαίο", and you'll see how pervasive these memes are. And yes, they are sometimes used by high-ranking politicians and government statements.
(c) "Greece would gain the economic rights": that's the crucial point within a Turkish argument. It's crucial for understanding why Turkey opposes the application of the "Law of the Sea" rules as being inequitable! Same for the info that Greek islands are scattered throughout the Aegean: the whole introductory paragraph about maritime zone divisions being inherently biased towards Greek interest is taken straight out of Turkish sources - it's crucial for their story; a Greek POV would be that this is totally irrelevant and general rules of international law just need to be applied without regard to the geographical pecularities of the area.
(d) I fail to see how the blue links would prejudice the reader towards one POV?
(e) The red links for consistent objector, res inter alios acta etc. are technical terms from international law. I'm not a studied expert in law, so I'm not in a position to write those articles, but for a few of these I actually filed a request for an article. These are crucial concepts in the legal debates here, and they get mentioned (and explained) in the relevant sources. In some instances, particularly about res inter alios acta, it's again most crucial for the Turkish argument (it explains why Turkey can rightfully say that the UN Law of the Sea Convention isn't binding to it).
(f) "after the Turkish occupation" etc.: that sentence is attributed to the Greek side as part of their argument. I can try to make the formulation clearer so as to make sure we aren't seen as endorsing it.
(g) Turkish names: okay, valid point. I have the list somewhere here. The articles of course have the Greek names as titles, as these are all undisputedly de facto Greek possessions, at least.
(h) Cited sources: the present reference section is a leftover of the old article, which was indeed biased and not very substantial. Most real references are currently listed in the Imia/Kardak article and some on this talk page here; I only didn't find the time to transfer them yet.
I hope this has made it clearer? Actually, I was under the impression I had been going out of my way to give the Turkish POV more than a fair share, as I knew I might be personally biased a bit towards the Greek one. I could understand that Greek readers might accuse me of bias now, so I'm a bit astonished at your reaction. Lukas 11:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
(a) & (b) I realise all that for living on greece (briefly) and turkey long enough. There are lots of ridiclous claims by both sides generaly spoken by politicians to win votes (how I see it) hence in the best interest of factual acuracy these need to be cited or stay commented out till citation (the cite template is ugly and makes rest of the article look ugly). I am not here to make claims either way, thats not my possition.
(c) Yea, it is a logical argument even greece partialy agrees (according to the article). I do not believe it is necesary to stress out about citation. Greece does not claim ownership of agean but reserves the right, in return Turkey retaliates by "airspace violations". Gotta love international politics :). If you however that peice of info is unacceptable, coment it out.
(d) Too many blue links. Has nothing to do with POV. It just is that same things are being linked to the point that the entier page is blue. Its just that there are too many links. I am making this as a general statement because I am not in a position to dictate which links should go. I think little comon sense can point out redundent links. (no need to link to aircraft when talking about airspace violations by aircraft its redundent thats all).
(e) I sympatise that but it is much better if you can briefly explain its meaning in one sentence by creating articles at the red links. It may not be perfect, definately better than nothing.
(f) yea endorsement is my primary concern, I bet Turs are sensative about that issue as much as Greeks.
(g) Well if a turk is reading about it they may look up for the turkish name thats why. It would be more encyclopedic that way. I do not think its worth to create articles about the majority of those islands as they are... umm too tiny to care about.
(h) Perhaps I was pointing out the obvious. It is an area we should improve on the long run.
Do not stress out for my suggestions. I am merely spitting out ideas from time to time. They all may not be good ideas but still are ideas. I have a feeling you like some of them :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aegean dispute grey zones

An anonymous dynamic IP user has twice tried to destroy Category:Aegean dispute grey zones without peer review. This category was originally set up based on the information provided in this article. Here's my take on it. I am not disputing the de jure sovereignty of these islands—they are under the sovereignty of Greece. However, what I am disputing is the notion that there is no grey zones dispute at all, when this article (whose information I go by) clearly outlines the nature of the grey zones dispute. If Turkish academia were to completely withdraw such disputes, then maybe there would then be basis for dismantling the category as it would no longer be an active dispute. I categorize things to make them cleanly cross-referenceable for a variety of unique academic interests—this is certainly an interesting subject, isn't it? - Gilgamesh 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, the reason i erased this category is that in fact it should not exist. Turkey and Turkish acandemia (first time i hear of that!) present a list of 5-6 Greek islands, out of the blue, and call it disputed grey zones. For the Greek government those claims are totally unacceptable. I dont think its right for an encyclopedia to "legalize" in a way such claims over sovereighty by presenting them. Imagine if, lets say Greece or any other country, suddenly presented the world with a list that stated that Hawai is a grey zone area. Would you write down as a Wikipedia editor that Hawai is a grey zone area or would you say that 'hey this guy is a total wacko'? Thanks. Regards.88.218.54.247 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the nature of the word "dispute." A dispute is precisely where two or more parties don't agree on an issue. The fact that the Greek government says there is no issue and Turkish academics say there is, represents a disagreement. See also Category:Disputed territories. In none of these cases does Wikipedia decide who is right—in all of these cases, it recognizes that the dispute merely exists. As for Hawaiʻi, its sovereign status is also disputed, and this dispute has even been recognized and addressed by the U.S. government when they apologized to Hawaiʻi for illegally annexing it—but it was just an apology, and nothing actually changed. - Gilgamesh 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Some comments about the article:

  • The lead is informative, but looks to me a bit listy with all these bullets. Could we avoid them, and have 2-3 concise paragraphs summarizing the article per WP:LEAD?
  • "The delimitation of exclusive economic zones". Do you know the difference between continental shelf and economic zone? The shelf has to do with the bottom of the sea. When a state has an economic zone the width of the shelf is equal to the width of the zone (200 nautical miles). But, according to the Treaty of 1982, a state can have continental shelf, even if it has no exclusive economic zone.
  • "See also: Foreign relations of Turkey, Foreign relations of Greece". I think that this should go. You can easily incorporate the links somewhere in the main prose.
  • In your intro in "Maritime and areal zones of influence", you could put one of these nice maps, depicting the Greek and Turkis islands in the Aegean.
  • "Turkey doesn't recognize any extensions of Greek teritorial waters beyond 6 miles (11 km) on any of its coasts (Aegean, Mediterranean and Ionian)." "Ionian"?!! I don't think that Turkey has raised an issue for the extension of territorial waters in the Ionian. Actually, I think that they try to explain why the Ionian is a different thing from the Aegean. But, again, I may be wrong ...
  • "The other countries have extended their territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22 km)." Vague ... And not a nice expression. All the other countries of the world (Hungary as well?!)!
  • "Greece, which is a party to this Convention, has stated that it reserves the right to apply this rule and extend its waters to 12 miles at some point in the future, although it has never actually attempted to do so." You should cite that, I think. After all, I don't think it is difficult to find on-line official statements of Greek officials about that.
  • "Against this, Turkey is in the position of a consistent objector, having consistently upheld that the special geographical properties of the Aegean Sea make a strict application of the 12-mile rule in this case illicit in the interest of equity." Repetitive prose ... And the equity! This is the main argument in Turkey in both the territorial waters and the continental shelf; we should expand a bit on that.
  • On 9 June 1995, the Turkish parliament officially declared that unilateral action by Greece would constitute a casus belli, i.e. reason to go to war, by Turkey. I think that casus belli is also an invariable and official position of their Council of National Security presided by the President of the Republic.
  • "having been fixed in 1931". Having be fixed by a national Greek law. This should be mentioned. And this is an argument of Turkey against Greece. They say: You fixed it on yourselves! With your laws! Not in accord with international Treaties! And Greece answers: Yes, we fixed it ourselves, but you did not dispute our decision for about 40 years. So, your indifference has created international customary law in favor of us!
  • "it was acknowledged by all its neighbours, including Turkey, before and after 1948, hence constituting an established right". It was not officially acknowledged I think, but it was not disputed at the same time.
  • "(1) that its 10-mile claim predates the ICAO statute, having been fixed in 1931, and that it was acknowledged by all its neighbours, including Turkey, before and after 1948, hence constituting an established right;[4],(2) that its 10-mile claim can also be interpreted as just a partial, selective use of the much wider rights guaranteed by the Law of the Sea, namely the right to a 12-mile (22.2 km) zone both in the air and on the water, and (3) that Greek territorial waters are only set at the 6 mile boundary because of Turkey's casus belli (see above)." I don't like the (1)(2)(3). I would prefer prose without these numbers or even bullets. I did some fixing per my taste!
  • "Turkey cites the statutes of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) of 1948,[3] as containing a binding definition that both zones must coincide." Prefer to put citations at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle, only if it is absolutely necessary for emphasis.
  • "The national airspace" is under-cited. Try to have at least one citation for each paragraph; preferably placed at the end of it (if you have just one!).
  • "shot-downs of Turkish jets". Oups?! When was a Turkish jet shot down?!!!
  • "These were perceived as a dangerous provocation by Greece, which led to a buildup of mutual military threats in 1976 and again in 1987." You should expand a bit on that. In 1987 the oceanographic mission came as a "reaction of fear" by Turkey, which was sucpicious that the Papandreou government intended to expand its research for petroleum in the waters around Thasos, entering what Greece regards as its own continental shelf (In fact, Papandreou was attempting to do exactly the opposite! He wanted to nationalize the oil company there, because the Canadian owners indeed intended to conduct reasearch in the continental shelf! But the Turks believed that this was a theatrinicism, and that Papandreou and the Canadian company were determined to conduct research there! There is a nice book for all that by Κ. Μαρδάς, "Προ-Ίμια Πολέμου").)
  • In this section you don't mention at all "equity". You should; it is all about equity! Turkey says that the problem should be fixed with the application of "equity"; Greece says that the difference should be resolved with the strict application of international law.
  • You also don't say that in 1976 Greece went to the International COurt of Hague against Turkey, asking it to rule "temporary measures against the Turkish provocations". But the Court ruled against Greece: 1) for lack of "irreperable predjudice" (ICJ Reports 1978, 3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 19 December 1978), 2) for incompetence with its ruling of December 19, 1978 (ICJ Reports 1978, 3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, 19 December 1978).
  • As you are a specialist on maps (!), I think you could create a map depicting territorial waters, continental shelf, and economice zone. There is a map in the article of continental shelf, but it depicts the geological continental shelf; not the continental shelf according to international law. There is a huuuuuge difference!
  • Do not wikilink single years; only full dates (e.g. June 13, 1912).
  • "this to prejudice a future arrangement regarding the continental shelf issue". Avoid boldings.
  • "But the issue of “grey zones” has added yet two additional problems and mutual confidence loss in Turkish-Greek relations." Avoid one-sentence stubby paragraphs like this one.
  • "The decades since the 1970s have seen a repeated hightening and abating of political and military tensions over the Aegean." I think that during the 70s Karamanlis had signed a Protocoll with Demirell. But I do not remember exactly where and when. I must check Μαρδάς, which right now is in another house!
  • "However, a newly elected Greek government under Kostas Karamanlis, soon after it took office in March 2004, opted out of this plan, because Ankara was insisting that all the issues, including Imia/Kardak and the "grey zones", belonged to a single negotiating item. Athens saw them as separate [8]. However, ..." Choppy!
  • Get rid of the "See also" section. You can link anything you want through the main prose.
  • Fix the online sources used in your citations properly and uniformally using Tepmlate:cite web and Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for this very knowledgable input, very useful points. Will work on it! Some of the inaccuracies you spotted seem to have crept in slowly in the course of the months when nobody was monitoring the article very closely. I'm not sure if I have a map that shows the precise extension of the continental shelf according to the Turkish thesis. Your stylistic monita are certainly spot on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demilitarized status

The text says:

Several of the Greek islands in the eastern Aegean have at various times during the 20th century been placed under a status of demilitarization. This was done, after the decades-long period of wars between Greece and Turkey which culminated in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), in order to ease possible Turkish fears of Greek expansionism.

A source is missing that the demilitarization was done in order to ease possible Turkish fears. Another interpretation is that the demilitarization was insisted upon by Turkey with the aim of gaining valuable geographic "hostages" in order to improve its bargaining position vis-à-vis Greece. I think this should be elaborated.

I have a problem with the following passage:

After the Cyprus crisis of 1974, Greece proceeded to break the demilitarized status of these islands, at first secretly but later openly too, claiming an inalienable right to defend itself against Turkish aggression. Turkey, on the other hand, denounces this as an aggressive act by Greece and as a breach of international treaties.[3]

The source is a text published by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is hardly an NPOV source. The Lausanne treaty e.g. allows military forces (as many can be locally recruited as well as a force of police and gendarmerie proportionate to the force of police and gendarmerie throughout the rest of Greece) in the case of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria. The status of these islands is one of reduced military presence, not complete demilitarization. Greek military forces hardly constitute a "break" of the demilitarized status. I would prefer a more flexible formulation, like that after 1974 Greece proceeded to reinforce its military and internal security forces in the region.

Any comments on that?

Letus 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the islands you mention, but Dwdekanhsa is a different case.--Yannismarou 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, not even the Greek government currently denies that it has more military there than the demilitarization statutes would have allowed. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much sense in them publicly developing intricate legal argumentation about why they no longer consider those statutes binding, would there? If you insist, I'd have to search for a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not so simple. The islands we are dealing with are covered by different militarization regimes. I think the Greeks' official position is that on Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria the demilitarization regime is respected. They do not appear to me to be "developing intricate legal argumentation about why they no longer consider those statutes binding", but to provide a legal argumentation for why the Turkish claims of a violation are unfounded. If you disagree it would be helpful to find an official Greek government source confirming your thesis. The Dodecanese is a different case. Letus 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We were discussing that yesterday on my talkpage. It's true that they apparently still deny violating the statutes in the case of Lesbos etc., I was wrong about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not just the "grey zones"

To the best of my knowledge, Rhodes has not yet been declared a "grey zone" by Turkey, but that didn't stop Turkish warjets flying directly over it not too long ago. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reliable info about (a) how often that happens, (b) whether the Turkish side admits it's happening, (c) why it happens? I've never yet seen reliable, official reports about such incidents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)