Μake us preferred on Google

Dear Minister, are we witnessing the end of the “calm waters”?

“The calm waters are not an end in themselves but the means to serve our national objectives. This policy came after a period of prolonged and escalating tension with Turkey, which was actively threatening peace in our region and could even have led to an armed conflict. The choice, therefore, to establish a functional relationship with our neighbor was clear and in our national interest: reducing crises while simultaneously strengthening Greece on multiple levels.

“First, violations of our National Airspace decreased, migration flows from the east were minimized, the islands of the Eastern Aegean were able to breathe and develop economically and, despite the tensions, no major crisis emerged.

“Second, we used the time to expand our economy and strengthen our defense. In particular, our Armed Forces, which had suffered a tremendous blow because of the economic crisis, were critically reinforced and today are in a position of superiority in the air and at sea, with the Rafale aircraft, upgraded F-16s, Belharra frigates, the new multidimensional force structure, as well as the new superweapons we expect in the coming period, particularly the F-35s.

“Third, Greece developed diplomatically and today stands at the peak of its power. We are at the hard core of all major international organizations, with strategic alliances with key countries such as the United States, France, Israel, Egypt, India and the Gulf countries. At the same time, we have closed open wounds, such as with Libya, and expanded our diplomatic footprint everywhere in the world.

“Fourth, the improvement in our relations with Turkey contributed decisively to restarting informal talks on the Cyprus issue, after a long period of stagnation, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General.

“Fifth, for the first time, Greece put forward, in an unequivocal manner, legal and political arguments in support of our national positions, such as the Marine Spatial Planning and the program for exploiting our undersea wealth, which effectively secure our sovereign rights.”

And what about the Athens Declaration? Should we consider it “dead”?

“Dialogue with Turkey is not an invention of the present government. All Greek governments, since the restoration of democracy, have held talks with Turkey, at times in a disorderly and fruitless manner, with 64 rounds of exploratory contacts that contributed nothing substantive to strengthening our national positions.

“The Athens Declaration established, for the first time, a structured three-pillar dialogue. The structured dialogue served as a channel for de-escalating relations between the two countries. Of course, we did not expect our long-standing differences to disappear as if by magic — after all, the Declaration itself stipulated that the parties would maintain their legal positions. However, in an extremely volatile and unpredictable international environment, with wars spreading across our wider neighborhood, it is important to have a clear and defined framework for communication and the peaceful resolution of our problems. And, for the first time, with Turkey’s explicit acceptance of the universally recognized principles of international law.”

In any case, we see Turkey building a leading role in the region and, as far as we are concerned, attempting to “create faits accomplis.” Do you agree with this assessment to begin with?

“Turkey’s actions in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean constitute a response to our own initiatives, which are aimed at securing our sovereign rights on the basis of international law. They are part of Turkey’s broader attempt to build a profile as a regional power with a strong defense industry and a presence in other countries. Unfortunately, Turkey’s presence in countries such as Libya and Syria is not always beneficial. Its latest interventions in Syria, in fact, appear to be creating a tendency toward further Turkish imposition, with spillover consequences for security in the wider region.

“In any case, no fait accompli can be created unilaterally. That is what the international legal order dictates, and we always ensure, independently or through our international alliances, that this is made clear and conveyed to everyone.”

So, to put it simply, what are we doing? Will our strategy change, and in what direction?

“Greek foreign policy is not determined by others. It is shaped sovereignly and independently, not through the prism of the foreign policy and respective initiatives of Turkey or any other state. We consistently serve our strategic plan, respond to blank shots with actions, and dramatically increase the strength of our national defense and our geopolitical position.”

“Greece will continue to shape its foreign policy in our region, not only toward Turkey but toward everyone, on the basis of international law and good-neighborly relations. But always through active initiatives, which have never existed before, and without compromising our national rights. If this bothers some people, at home or abroad, they should get over it. The Greece of passive diplomatic inertia is irrevocably a thing of the past. It has been replaced by a Greece of confidence and initiative.”

Let me raise a practical issue. Ankara has announced two environmental parks. As part of their supposed protection, it is asking for passage rights around Limnos and Kastellorizo. Do you consider such a scenario unlikely? Would this constitute a “casus belli” for Athens?

“The Turkish environmental parks, as announced, are illegal and produce no legal effect because they extend beyond Turkish territorial waters, into undelimited international waters on the Greek continental shelf. Of course, the relevant Presidential Decrees do not include environmental protection terms and restrictions, only coordinates.

“In any case, the position of the Greek government is clear: any attempt to violate our sovereign rights will be met by every appropriate means. Our primary objective is obviously the peaceful resolution of disputes, but we are absolutely prepared for every scenario. For us, patriotic duty does not mean cost-free shouting and war cries. It means expanded strength, constant preparedness and an unwavering determination to defend the homeland.”

You say that the Turkish parks “produce no legal effects.” How do you think such an argument sounds in the White House today?

“Although we are experiencing an international environment in which the security architecture is now determined more by power and less by rules, I believe that no one wants a global jungle. The Western tradition of faith in international multilateralism and international law constitutes a defense against every opportunistic revisionism.

“Nevertheless, one does not negate the other. We invoke international law while building our strength. In cooperation with our allies, such as the United States, with which our relationship is at an excellent point and with which we maintain an open line of communication, we are working exhaustively to strengthen our national positions.

“Obviously, we cannot determine the foreign policy of other countries, even those of our allies. What we always ensure, however, is that the Greek positions are heard and that we have the leverage for them to always be taken seriously.”

Nevertheless, Minister, it is clear that Recep Tayyip Erdogan has strong backing in Washington. He “takes courage,” so to speak, from Donald Trump. What is our own “backing”?

“In recent years, our country has not only not relied on the backing of others, but has rather provided backing to other states. This has been evident in Cyprus, the Balkans, the Middle East and the Gulf countries.

“In today’s multipolar world, it is not enough to be strong; you must also project strength. And as far as we are concerned, this projection is reinforced by the regular expressions of gratitude from states for the security we provide them.

“While others desperately seek external assistance and focus on appearances rather than substance, we are building our strength and preparing for the presidency of the UN Security Council next October and the presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of 2027.

“Major international policies pass through our country. We did not need anyone’s backing to set the terms for the participation of non-EU countries in European defense programs such as SAFE. We did not need anyone’s backing to enter the F-35 and F-16 upgrade programs. We did not need anyone’s backing to confront the hybrid migration attack at Evros.

“And at the same time, we play a leading role in the European Union’s EUNAVFOR ASPIDES operation to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, as well as in the EUNAVFOR Irini operation in the Central Mediterranean.

“We do not need borrowed courage from third parties; it is in our DNA.”

We have “just enough” support from Europe. As usual, one might say. On the other hand, are we overinvesting in our relationship with Israel?

“Allow me to disagree. The European Union operates through convergence and compromise, but it works. And it proves that, when necessary, it innovates, takes initiatives and stands by its member states.

“If you read the Conclusions of the European Council, the reports of the European Commission and Parliament, and the positions developed within the framework of initiatives on European defense and strategic autonomy, you will realize that solidarity, both toward Greece and Cyprus, is substantive.

“On the other hand, our relationship with Israel is strategic in nature. It is a relationship with a long-term foundation, in which Cyprus also actively participates within the framework of the trilateral cooperation arrangement we have developed.

“We engage with Israel as strategic partners, but we also engage with the entire Arab world. Our foreign policy is multidimensional, with open channels and partnerships whose sole guiding principle is strengthening our country’s international position.

“I understand that one of our force multipliers, such as our relationship with Israel, may bother some people. I want to be clear: no Greek alliance is structured to threaten another country. Nevertheless, the Greek state accepts no instructions from anyone about how it develops its bilateral and multilateral relations.”

Let us return to the Aegean. What are we doing with our own parks? Are we moving forward? Are we forgetting about them?

“Greece has, for the first time, proceeded with defining its Marine Spatial Planning, setting out the outer limits of its continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone. It has recorded in a single document, which forms part of the European acquis, its maritime zones, both those already delimited by agreement with neighboring states and their potential limits where no such agreement exists.

“In addition, two new National Marine Parks have been established, in the Aegean and the Ionian. This is an environmental initiative of major importance for the preservation of biodiversity, the protection of habitats and raising awareness about the marine environment.

“This naturally includes restrictions on human activity, navigation and fishing. These restrictions are environmental in nature and are intended to protect sensitive marine ecosystems. At the initiative of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and in cooperation with the other competent ministries, the implementing Presidential Decrees will be issued in the coming period.”

However, we all understand the difference. We restricted ourselves to six miles, while the Turks extended into international waters. Were we wrong to “pull back”? I am also asking in relation to the initial intention for a park in the Dodecanese.

“International law does not apply à la carte. Greece acts exclusively within the framework of international law and, in particular, the international law of the sea. This is not ‘self-restraint’; it is an obvious obligation, a conscious choice of responsibility and institutional seriousness by a law-abiding country that respects the international order.

“This is what a responsible government does in order to have a legitimate interest in being able to invoke international law in every respect in the future.

“In this way, we have expanded Greece by extending our territorial waters in the Ionian and as far as Cape Tainaron; we have exercised our sovereign rights through the agreements delimiting the Exclusive Economic Zone with Italy and Egypt; we have assigned energy giants to explore and exploit deposits south of Crete; we have introduced Marine Spatial Planning; and we are moving forward with Marine Parks in the Aegean and Ionian.

“Really, when else in Greek political history have we had so many initiatives securing our rights?

“Those who criticize us over Turkey’s expected reactions to these Greek initiatives should first explain why they did not dare to bring forward even one initiative from this list.”

Nevertheless, a situation is taking shape in which Turkey does not recognize a continental shelf for the Greek islands, disputes other matters, announces marine parks and passes a law on the ‘Blue Homeland.’ Minister, is the status quo in the Aegean changing step by step?

“Turkey’s ahistorical and unrealistic arguments are not new; they go back decades: ‘Blue Homeland,’ gray zones, the demilitarization of islands. Nor did we expect Turkey to abandon these positions.

“We are putting forward our own arguments, which are on the table for the first time. And we call on Turkey to refer to the International Court of Justice the only dispute that can be brought before an international jurisdiction, namely the delimitation of the continental shelf and EEZ, on the basis of international law.

“Those who are not afraid of international law embrace it and, when there is no common ground, turn to international jurisdiction. Those whose position is not based on international law distance themselves from the ratification of international treaties and proceed with unilateral illegal actions.

“In this case, however, there is a price to pay before the international community. If the reported Turkish bill on maritime jurisdiction zones departs from international law, there will be consequences.”

Egypt. What would its joining the Mecca Agreement mean for us? Do you have second thoughts about the presence of the Patriots in Saudi Arabia?

“Egypt is a strategic partner of Greece. Greece and Egypt are pillars of stability in the region and maintain a strategic partnership based on historical ties and a shared understanding of the region’s major issues. At the same time, we maintain stable and substantive trilateral cooperation with Cyprus, which has demonstrated its added value and resilience.

“Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is also strategic. A characteristic indication of the importance we attach to cooperation with Saudi Arabia is that it was the first Middle Eastern country with which Greece institutionalized a Supreme Council for Strategic Cooperation. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is among the countries that have clearly opposed the Turkish-Libyan memorandum.

“The agreement for the deployment of the Greek Patriot battery in Saudi Arabia is exclusively defensive and deterrent in nature. It is linked to the protection of critical infrastructure, which is also relevant to Greek and European energy security, while it also has significant added value for the training of our military personnel and the testing of the systems under real-world conditions.

“Greece always monitors regional developments seriously and adjusts its position based on the national interest, Greek defense priorities and its international commitments.”

Now, regarding the Greece-Cyprus cable, French company Meridiam has secured participation, while exploration in areas of the Eastern Mediterranean remains pending. In Nicosia, they are raising the issue of protecting the exploration activities. Do you think the Armed Forces could take on such a role?

“The Greece-Cyprus electricity interconnection is a project of major importance that ends Cyprus’ energy isolation. The recent entry of French company Meridiam as the majority shareholder in Great Sea Interconnector confirms the project’s economic and technical viability and its value.

“It goes without saying that our country, in coordination with the Republic of Cyprus, will take the necessary steps for its full and unhindered implementation.”

What are our own “offensive” weapons on the table? Would the government consider extending territorial waters south of Crete to 12 nautical miles?

“Extending our territorial waters to 12 nautical miles is an inalienable right, which Greece retains the right to exercise unilaterally at a time and in a manner to be chosen by the Greek state.”

What are your relations like now with your Turkish counterpart? Do your personal lines of communication remain open?

“With the Turkish foreign minister, we have achieved a satisfactory level of communication regarding each side’s positions and red lines. Thanks to this communication, major crises have been avoided over the past three years and a functional relationship has been built for the benefit of both peoples.”

Your domestic critics consider the “calm waters” a sham and the government’s policy in the Southeastern Mediterranean at least soft. What is your response?

“Both in Greece and Turkey, within the framework of irresponsible and opportunistic political discourse, even simple communication between two politicians is sometimes demonized. But let us understand that without dialogue there can be no solution to any problem.

“And in any case, dialogue does not mean retreating from national positions. Those who advocate cutting the bridges with Turkey should have the basic sound judgment to explain what consequences such an irresponsible stance could have.

“At the heart of the matter, in order to assess whether the ‘calm waters’ policy has succeeded, beyond the obvious fact that it secured for us a period without major crises amid extremely adverse geopolitical upheavals, we should project where we were in 2023 and where we are today, and whether the time that has elapsed has benefited our national interests.

“In 2023, Greece had definitively emerged from the economic crisis and was on a path of steady growth. It still bore the marks of the major migration crisis and the pandemic crisis. It was still at the stage of strengthening its Armed Forces and was gradually expanding its diplomatic footprint around the world, while Turkey had consolidated its long-standing claims, had concluded the invalid Turkish-Libyan memorandum and had a strong presence in the world.

“The period of the ‘calm waters’ was crucial and beneficial to the balance of power: Greece is today an extremely strong international player with a voice across the international arena. It is in an exceptionally resilient fiscal position, and its military strength has soared, while during the same period we institutionalized our arguments in the Aegean and Eastern Europe.

“Yes, we want peace. But we want it from a position of strength. With confidence and without fear-driven complexes. This is the Greece of today.”