East Med Gas Pipeline

[Guy M]

Has anyone been following the dispute between Greece and Turkey over rights to gas resources in the East Med? This has been brewing for years, but recent discoveries plus the planned East Med pipeline (which is set to run right by the NE tip of Crete) has given it an added focus. Even got an Economist leader this week. (The Economist | A sea of trouble - sorry, you have to buy the Economist to read the article [though reading the Economist is highly recommended]).

Of course, the pipeline may never get built - lots of these are planned but don’t get off the drawing board.

[Maud]

It has made regular news headlines in the U.K. since the Limnos incident Guy, especially once Macron offered more naval support.

[Kilkis]

Erdogan, having established himself as a dictator in Turkey, now wants to recreate the Ottoman Empire with him as its Sultan.

The dispute between Greece and Turkey over who controls what are long standing and the current oil/gas exploration is just a continuation. On 9 June 1995, the Turkish parliament officially declared that if Greece unilaterally extended its territorial waters from 6 miles to 12 miles, as it is entitled to do under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it would constitute a casus belli, i.e. reason to go to war. This is a direct threat of military action by Turkey against Greece and the threat has never been rescinded. The threat stands today. While Turkey is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and maintains that it only applies to its signatories, it is a member of NATO and issuing such a threat is against Article 1 of the NATO Treaty. No action of any sort has ever been taken by NATO for this breach of its rules. It should be noted that Turkey also declares 12 mile territorial waters along its southern coast.

Warwick

[Keltz]

I was sent an interesting article about this ongoing saga that points to the Geopolitics being acted out. Title’d....

“Turkey-Greece conflict in eastern Mediterranean is less about gas than vaccuum left by Trump”

and sums up as...

“while Berlin is left trying to reach a balance in the Greece-Turkey confrontation, Washington, traditionally the guarantor of peace between the Aegean NATO rivals, has been almost totally silent. There is a sense that all parties want to take advantage of this, onshore and offshore, before the US elections. It is oddly this vacuum, rather than fossil fuels, that is fanning regional rivalries. With the US withdrawn, Moscow continuing its opaque brinkmanship and the EU split over Turkey, the scene is unfortunately set for more instability to come.”

https://theconversation.com/turkey-gree ... ump-144691

As always judge yourself about the source and publication of this article as a trusted piece. Seems to be a factual and balanced view with no obvious unwarranted attempt at reader influence.

[Guy M]

As the World moves to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the pipeline may never get built and the gas will stay where it is.

If this happens, this dispute will be “two bald men fighting over a comb” (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

[Kilkis]

...As always judge yourself about the source and publication of this article as a trusted piece. Seems to be a factual and balanced view with no obvious unwarranted attempt at reader influence.

I tend to agree. I looked at a few other articles and there was no obvious agenda pushing.

One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned in any articles at the moment is the change in direction of Turkey's government. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Kemal Atatürk founded a secularist government in the new Turkey. While that government still had considerable antagonism towards Greece, and the secularists still do, it was western looking and really did aspire to become part of the EU. That, to some extent, tempered its overt antagonism towards Greece, as Greece could, and for some years did, veto Turkish membership. Erdogan is more eastern looking and wants an Islamic state. I don't think he would like to lose his customs union with the EU but I don't think he has any ideas of becoming a full member. That gives him more freedom to act. He also has a wide range of domestic economic problems and history has shown many times that leaders in difficulty will use external threats, real or imagined, to divert attention from the domestic ones.

Warwick