Cihat Yaycı: "Greece has many weak parts"

Cihat Yaycı: "Greece has many weak parts"
Date: 23.8.2020 11:00

In the second part of the interview, Yaycı said, "As a result of the unfair demands and provocations of Greece, the clash of two NATO member states shakes the foundation of NATO."

email Print zoom+ zoom-
In the second part of the interview where we talked about the developments in the Eastern Mediterranean with Former Chief of Naval Forces Rear Admiral Cihat Yayci, he said, "As a result of the unfair demands and provocations of Greece, the clash of two NATO member states shakes the foundation of NATO."
Greece is a NATO member, Turkey is a NATO member. What kind of situation arises in case of a possible conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean? How does NATO function?
First of all, I think that the clash of two NATO member states as a result of the unfair demands and provocations of Greece will shake the foundation of NATO. On the other hand, Greece is a member of the EU and wants to make the EU an intermediary for its demands. This situation also disrupts NATO and EU relations.
As you know, Article 17 (1) of the provisions on Common Security and Defense Policy of the 2002 version of the Nice Treaty, which was signed in 2001 and entered into force in 2003, indicates that the EU cannot apply sanctions against NATO member countries and that It essentially states that it cannot take initiatives that constitute incompatibility with NATO countries.
For the member states concerned, this article means that the actions and decisions they take in the framework of the EU military crisis management will always respect the Treaty obligations as NATO allies.
In summary, it is clearly seen that Greece's call for sanctions to the EU based on the articles of the Nice Treaty does not have a legal basis. Greece has an unlawful expectation because the EU does not have the right to impose any sanctions against a NATO member country. Of course, states can do whatever they want individually, these agreements and declarations do not bind the states, of course, but bind the EU as an institution. Otherwise, I think that each state can do whatever it wants to do, but the EU cannot. However, the EU's sanctioning a NATO member country with NATO aid is not worthwhile. Such decisions also damage EU and NATO relations.
Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, made statements on the latest developments in the Eastern Mediterranean. Stoltenberg said that "the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean must be resolved in the spirit of allied solidarity and in accordance with international law." Where do you put this statement of NATO?
As I have just mentioned, the Secretary General has demonstrated sensitivity in terms of the continuity of the stability and integrity of the NATO alliance. Greece should respect the law and immediately abandon its unjust demands. It should not disrupt NATO's allied solidarity.
Is the European Union the reason for Greece's arrogance and pampering that broke the Lausanne treaty?
Throughout history, Greece has never prevailed in war and expanded its territory. It is a revisionist state that has constantly extended its territory to the new, taking shelter behind the great states. It is a revisionist (expansionist) state that never gives up its goal of Megalo Idea (aiming to take all the Islands Sea, Thrace, Istanbul and Western Anatolia).
How do you evaluate America's attitude? Is the hot war between Greece and Turkey did serve to the US's goals?
I do not think that the war, especially the war of two NATO member states, will not benefit anyone.
You often emphasize diplomacy in solving this problem. If Greece takes a step back in this incident or if a common consensus is reached, will progress be made on other issues in which Ankara has problems with Athens?
First of all, according to international law, Greece is not our addressee in the Eastern Mediterranean. The possibility of us agreeing to negotiate with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean would be an irreversible attitude. In this case, negotiating with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean may mean talking about how we will meet Greece's demand, that is, discussing how much of our rights we will give to Greece.
To negotiate how much continental shelf the Islands will be given means to abolish the Libya treaty. Because we are signing this treaty and Turkey and Libya in accordance with the law of the sea while taking a line of maritime jurisdiction beyond territorial waters to the islands is known. In addition, if negotiations begin on the issue of granting maritime jurisdiction to the islands other than territorial waters, the situation will mean the loss of the continental shelf line, which we say that it crosses the border of the territorial waters in the west of the island of Cyprus, which we have defended since 2004. This would mean the acceptance of the map of Seville that imprisoned us in the Gulf of Antalya.
In this case, if Greece gives up its unfair demands in the Eastern Mediterranean, discussing not only the continental shelf / exclusive economic zone but also all the problems starting with EGAYDAAK (islands, islets and rocks whose sovereignty was not transferred to Greece by treaties) gives very positive results in the Sea of ​​Islands. But take note of Greece and Turkey to negotiate with the invitation while the only issue to be discussed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Islands continental shelf / exclusive economic zone is meant is shared. So he says he doesn't talk about EGAYDAAK etc. Let's not come to this game. First, the EGAYDAAK problem must be solved, then the others. Typical of Greek cunning. We have to be very careful.
Basically there is no problem between us. Only Greece has a demand from the sea area, which is our right.
Although the exact number is unknown, there are approximately 70 warships in the Eastern Mediterranean. How would a possible hot conflict with Greece or Egypt affect the region?
I think this number is exaggerated. I do not see the possibility of a hot conflict with Egypt. However, it takes great courage for Greece to come into conflict with us. I believe we will never give up our rights and our homeland water. Such a conflict affects Greece extremely badly rather than the region. As I said, we are a nation that has an army that fights and is used to war for its rights.
Should we be worried about conflict?
If there is a conflict, withdrawal from anxiety is not suitable for our nature. If one day tomorrow any state claims rights in one of our provinces, will we shy away from conflict and negotiate? This hesitate as the Turkish nation and the state of the Republic of Turkey to negotiate and will not say never is already evident by the numerous evidences.
In fact, it is not possible for Greece to risk confrontation with us. Because it has so many weak parts… When you look at the map, you can clearly see where the weak parts are. I would like to draw attention to the islands that were transferred to Greece on condition that they have non-military status but were demilitarized and armed by Greece, and where the transfer requirement was eliminated by Greece itself and their positions near our Anatolian coasts. Essentially, I implicitly point to a crisis management strategy in my own way.
 What should we do in the Eastern Mediterranean?
Greece's next step will be to sign an 'exclusive economic zone' (EEZ) agreement with the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. The news of this started to spread in the Greek press. For this reason, I find it beneficial to immediately declare an exclusive economic zone in the Eastern Mediterranean, as if to make an agreement with the relevant countries.


Milli Gazete Puplication Group All Rights Reserved © 2000-2016 - Can not be published without permission ! Tel : +90 212 697 1000  /  Fax : +90 212 697 1000 Software Development and System Support: Milli Gazete