4 ms·

He takes a wonderfully naive approach for someone who's historically knowledgeable. I'm sure he knows why and how territorial claims are made and how countries

He takes a wonderfully naive approach for someone who's historically knowledgeable. I'm sure he knows why and how territorial claims are made and how countries use and abuse historical data, archives, archeology, myths, narratives and make inflated claims from otherwise trivial facts (e.g. this document which has a stamp of a representative of the King on this trade document exchanging camels for figs shows the kingdom had economic representation in the region which under the cultural norms at the time was viewed as de facto political rule, traced all the way to now means the republic that succeeded the kingdom still has sovereignty here.) None of these are mistakes, they're political claims. The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal, but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.

thirduncle 8y ago
It ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. Turnabout is fair play, you know. Unless one wishes to pretend that certain events in 1974 have no role to play in the equation.
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  Of course they play a role (like a thousand other things), but if Cyprus didn't exist did you really think the Aegean dispute would be much different? No. Greece didn't draft the 12 nautical miles portion of UNCLOS which is at the heart of the issue, this isn't a Greek law, it's international law. And it's not workable for Turkey, regardless of the Cyprus question. Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
  - thirduncle 8y ago
    I agree that it's complex and political. But this language that sees Turkey as the one being "massively screwed over" in the region - that I think we dispense with.
John_KZ 8y ago
Turkey owns 4 islands in the Aegean. Greece has over 6,000 in total. I don't see where you get the "screwing over" part. Is it because you think Turkey should have more territories than it does today? Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist. I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  When I say screwing over, I don't mean that as a value judgement on Greece's position. Greece's position makes sense, international law is on their side as is history. I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that. i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%. International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law. I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
  - thirduncle 8y ago
    I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that. Let's just assume that it is. But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now: "What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"

thirduncle 8y ago

It ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. Turnabout is fair play, you know. Unless one wishes to pretend that certain events in 1974 have no role to play in the equation.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago
Of course they play a role (like a thousand other things), but if Cyprus didn't exist did you really think the Aegean dispute would be much different? No. Greece didn't draft the 12 nautical miles portion of UNCLOS which is at the heart of the issue, this isn't a Greek law, it's international law. And it's not workable for Turkey, regardless of the Cyprus question. Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
- thirduncle 8y ago
  I agree that it's complex and political. But this language that sees Turkey as the one being "massively screwed over" in the region - that I think we dispense with.

John_KZ 8y ago

Turkey owns 4 islands in the Aegean. Greece has over 6,000 in total. I don't see where you get the "screwing over" part. Is it because you think Turkey should have more territories than it does today? Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist. I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago
When I say screwing over, I don't mean that as a value judgement on Greece's position. Greece's position makes sense, international law is on their side as is history. I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that. i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%. International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law. I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
- thirduncle 8y ago
  I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that. Let's just assume that it is. But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now: "What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"