The Greek-Turkish crisis in the Aegean sea which threatened peace and stability in the region a few weeks ago did not astonish the international community. We have already witnessed many incidents in the long conflict between the two countries. The end of the cold war has lead to a normalisation of many political relationships across the continent of Europe, but Greece and Turkey keep their sometimes bitter competition alive. The tension has disrupted the cohesion of NATO, which must try to deal with two of its members sailing on the brink of war, and jeopardises the ability of the western alliance to influence events in the Middle East and Balkans.

1. THE CHRONICLE OF THE DISPUTE

The latest Greco-Turkish crisis originated over the sovereign ambiguity of an islet called Imia in Greek and Kardank in Turkish. Until the recent crisis the island was recognised a belonging to Greece. Imia is located between Kalimos (one of the Greek islands) and the Turkish coast. Uses of Imia are limited to it being a fishing station and a navigation point.

The crisis escalated quickly from obscure beginnings. Before December 1995 few people in either country knew where Imia was. The rapid escalation of the crisis is symptomatic of the mutual suspicion and animosity that exists between Greece and Turkey.

- 26th of December 1995: A Turkish boat ran aground on the islet of Imia

where it refused to accept any help from the Greek authorities, claiming

that the islet was in Turkish territorial waters.

- 28th of December 1995: The boat left with the help of the Greek

authorities.

- 26th of January 1996: The Turkish newspaper 'Huriet' highlighted

ambiguities about the sovereignty of Imia. On the same day local

authorities from Kalimnos raised the Greek flag on Imia.

Greek and Turkish naval forces rushed to the area, providing television

news with dramatic pictures of military hardware.

- 28th of January 1996: Turkish journalists working for 'Huriet' took down

the Greek flag and raised the flag of Turkey. The Greek government

responded by raising the Greek flag once again and taking up the issue

with the Government of Turkey and the ambassadors of the Western European states, the US and Russia.

- 29th of January 1996: Greece rejected a Turkish proposal for a bilateral

dialogue to begin regulating the seas between the two countries.

- 30-31st of January 1996: An American inspired agreement urges both

sides to withdraw their naval forces

While the two parties were negotiating through the meditative effort of the US,

two small boats with 10 Turkish soldiers disembarked on another Greek claimed

islet close to Imia.

Greece's reactions were very intense. It was explained in Athens as a Turkish effort to change the status-quo in the East Aegean Sea and so encroach upon Greek territorial waters. The Turkish demands over sovereignty were seen as a plan to necessitate a general regulatory regime to cover all disputed territories and so arrange an advantageous position in other areas.

The perception in Turkey of the same incident was very different. It has been explained as the beginning of a Greek general plan to extent its territorial waters from 6nm to 12nm. Such an extension, necessarily encroaching into areas claimed by Turkey, has been considered as a causus beli by Turkey. However it is doubtful whether such talk will turn out to be any more than sabre rattling.

LEGAL ASPECTS

Greece has the stronger legal claim to Imia and its neighbouring islets. The Dodecanese (the closest island group to Imia) originally belonged to Turkey. They were conceded to Turkey in 1932. According to the treaty all islands located off the coast of what was then termed as 'Asia Minor' were conceded to Italy. Greece won control of the Dodecanese after the Second World War, in 1947 she was named as a successor state.

As a successor state Greece had the same rights of ownership as Italy. Moreover Greece has enjoyed a continuos period of ownership of Imia. The Turkish position is that Imia is not an island but a rock, and therefore was not covered by the 1932 or 1947 treaties. According to Turkey, Greece is then illegally occupying a rock that lies in Turkish waters. Unfortunately there is

no unambiguous distinction between an island and a rock in international law.

It is generally accepted that Greece has the strongest legal claim. Turkey has implicitly accepted this position by refusing the impartial arbitration of the International Court of Justice. Instead Turkey has called for bi-lateral negotiations to decide the future of Imia and the status of the rest of the disputed areas of the East Aegean Sea. Such negotiations would inevitably benefit Turkey. Greece has control of almost all the islands in that area and therefore holds all the cards. Negotiations inevitably involve some horse trading, for them to be successful Greece would have to concede some of her territory. Turkey has little to lose. Finally it is interesting to note that the ambiguities over the status of Imia are recognised in the Greek language, which calls Imia a 'rock island'.

HISTORY OF ANTAGONISM

A number of bitter disputes exist between the two Mediterranean countries. A small part of Greece gained independence after a long revolt in 1830. Most of the rest of the country had to be gained through further wars that lasted until 1922. Since then issues like Cyprus have continued to divide the two countries. The antagonism between the two countries is based upon history, and is therefore particularly intractable.

The relationship between Greece and Turkey was sharpened by crises in 1955 (concerning the Greek minority in Istanbul) and more precisely after the violent division of Cyprus in 1974. From 1974 onwards a series of territorial disputes arose in the Aegean Sea. A lack of meaningful communication and incompatible approaches to the essence of the disputes has made resolution of the conflict impossible.

Greece and Turkey have failed to create a legal framework for regulating the waters between their two countries. Legal issues that divide the two countries include the demarcation of the continental shelf, and the extension of Greek territorial waters from 6 nm to 12nm and aerial zone to 10nm. The wider international community is involved in disputes over the operational control of NATO and the Turkish entry into the EU.

The most intractable is over the continental shelf. Greece and Turkey dispute both the demarcation line between Greek and Turkish territory and the procedure by which an agreement can be reached. Turkey favours bi-lateral negotiations while Greece insists upon arbitration by the international court of justice.

Greece focuses upon the legal aspects of the dispute as opposed to the Turkish preoccupation with its economic and political character.

INFLUENCES

The Greek political situation has stabilised with the accession of a new government that presents a modernising profile. On the international arena Greece has appeared isolated. Greece's European allies have been very

reluctant to get involved in what they see as a purely bi-lateral spat. Greece's policy toward Macedonia has alienated many of her partners in the EU and NATO.

Greece's opposition to the Republic of Macedonia, including a very damaging embargo on Macedonian trade going through Greek ports, has made Greece seem intransigent and unreasonable. Her treatment of the small and very new republic has damaged her position in the larger competition with Turkey.

In Turkey a parliamentary crisis has lead to the absence of a government for the last two months. The power of the army has been enhanced, foreign policy is being exercised by a National Security Committee which includes five generals and four politicians. The army has always had a privileged position in Turkey, it is responsible for preserving the ideas of Kemel Ataturk, the Turkish

leader that founded Turkish democracy and Turkey's European orientation.

The Turkish body politic faces many internal problems. Turkey faces a bitter civil war with the Kurds in the East and a growing country wide spread of Islamic militancy. The Turkish president has used the crisiswith Greece to enhance the image of her presidency among nationalists by presenting the crisis as a victory against Greece.

Greek and Turkish relations are passing through to a new phase which is characterised by the necessity of Ankara to find a successful exit to deadlock between the two countries. By trying to renegotiate the Greek sovereign

rights in the Aegean Sea Turkey will compensate for the serious concessions it is expected to make in the dispute over Cyprus.

Ankara has followed a consistent policy of exacerbating tension between Greece and Turkey following the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. By forcing the Greek government to renegociate the legal regime of the Aegean Sea, Turkey is

aiming to establish the right to exploit mineral wealth on and below the sea bed. The Turkish policy of rejecting arbitration by the International Court of

Justice shows a marked disregard for international law, particularly as the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea calls for all maritime disputes to be settled by independent arbitration.

Unfortunately for Greece, Turkey is unlikely to lose the support of her allies in NATO and friends in the EU. Turkey constitutes a very useful ally to the US and Western European States. It is placed to play a key role in managing instabilities in the Middle East, Caucuses, and Central Asia. Turkey played a vital role in the Gulf War and this role reinforced the perception of its crucial geo-political position. Turkey, with its position as a Western leaning democracy and as an Islamic state is seen as a vital bridge between the West and the Islamic states of the former Soviet Union. In addition to its geo-political position Turkey has underlined its international importance by its participation in the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and its loyalty to NATO during the Cold War.

DIPLOMATIC REACTIONS

In general the international community tried to keep a safe distance form the crisis. The US has avoided taking sides over the issue of sovereignty over Imia. Instead it has offered to sponsor indirect negotiations and has urged a return to the status-quo that existed before the crisis. This mediatory role is motivated by a desire in Washington to maintain stability in the vulnerable Southeast wing of NATO. The US has always tried to follow a balanced policy to Greece and Turkey, this has included large amounts of military aid to both countries.

However a slight preference toward Greece has been detected in Athens. Greece believes that its legal position is stronger than Turkey's, and the Pentagon has declared the necessity to respect international law and encouraged both sides to go to the International Court of Justice. This stance can be explained by the pressure exercised by a powerful Greek lobby in the US in the run up to the presidential elections.

Western European states have viewed the crisis as a problem between Greece and Turkey which must be resolved peaceably by negotiations or arbitration. Because of the lack of a common EU foreign and defence policy, the EU council of ministers has not adopted a common position. However the much less influential European Parliament hasvoted in a resolution which blamed Turkey for the recent crisis and supported the previous status quo. It should be remembered that Greece is a member of the EU while Turkey is not, an encroachment upon Greece's borders is tantamount to an encroachment on the borders of the EU itself. The lack of a common EU defence and foreign policy has enabled the rest of Western Europe to stay out of the conflict and not offend either side.

The UK has taken a very cautious stance and has not deviated from the other countries' line. It has declared the necessity of a direct dialogue between Greece and Turkey and insisted that the matter has to be resolved by Greece and Turkey alone.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NATO

In 1952 both Greece and Turkey became members of NATO. They, along with Italy, constitute NATO's South-eastern wing. The threat of the Soviet Military had an important impact upon the relationship between Greece and Turkey.

The participation of Turkey and Greece in the same military organisation, and the existence of a common foe, reduced the possibility of an armed conflict between Greece and Turkey. An armed conflict between Greece and Turkey during the Cold War would have seriously weakened the Atlantic alliance. Both countries were put under extreme pressure to ignore their differences.

The current problem for NATO lies in the situation that while the Soviet threat has disappeared, Greece and Turkey still occupy a vital geo-strategic area. NATO has a number of vital interests in the Balkans, East Mediterranean and the Middle East. Growing conflict between Greece and Turkey threatens the ability of NATO to deal with problems in the region. It was this fear which motivated the high profile US intervention in the conflict and its offer of mediation.

CONCLUSIONS

The main threat to NATO lies in a disintegration of a common strategy and operational co-operation rather than war between its members. Operations in Bosnia and the Adriatic depend upon Greek and Turkish co-operation. Co-operation is also essential if NATO countries are to consider another operation similar to Desert Storm which was fought largely by NATO troops using NATO command structures. Greek and Turkish conflict threatens to prevent NATO forces being used in that region again. Both Greece and Turkey have too much to loose, and little to gain, from violence. These losses would include the large amounts of military aid that both countries receive from the US, Turkey would never gain entry into the EU, and the tourist industry, important to both countries, would suffer.

Conflict allowed to escalate because little communication between the countries. Both countries have effectively agreed upon a more moderate and less aggressive diplomacy on cultural and tourism issues. The two countries have been able to manage potentially divisive issues if they perceive a reward from co-operation. Communication between the governments is the best way to manage crises that are certain to arise in the future.

However there are strong demands in both countries for war. The Greek prime minister was accused of treason by the popular press after he refused to attack the Turkish marines that occupied an islet close to Imia. The mutual fear and animosity of the Greek and Turkish peoples is the greatest threat to peace in the region. The value of Imia is nothing more than a symbol in a protracted conflict that has existed for centuries.