Written by Francis Verros
"Greece and Turkey are condemned by history to be friends"This quote belongs to a political protagonist of the Post-Coalition period, and was said at the worst moment in the relations between the two countries at a tragic moment for Cyprus – in August 1974.
Story
It is true that the priority of the then Greek-Turkish leadership was to avoid open conflict, in order to then seek the normalization of our relationship with Turkey and the territorial restoration of the Cypriot democracy. The aftermath showed to what extent both goals were feasible…
Fifty-two years later, we could make somewhat more prosaic observations – even of a philosophical nature. The friendships of states are, of course, based on common interests, common ideals, and a similar mentality. More or less the same as those of people… The role of history is important, but only in relation to the factors mentioned above. No one fights, makes peace, or enters into alliances with an eye on the past. In foreign policy, we almost always look to the future, under the pressure of the present, which is sometimes suffocating…
In the case of Turkey, the Greek leadership, for many decades, reasonably looked forward to a future of cooperation, of shared progress and international coexistence. The two countries had common interests – within the Western world, within our common region, perhaps even within Europe. The development of relations could – and still can – be mutually beneficial for the average Greek and the average Turk. It could also relieve us of a large part of the exorbitant defense spending. So, forward to Tourism, Exports, Investments, mutual understanding, delimitation of maritime zones, calm waters…
This vision lacks neither logic nor theoretical basis. It is also attractive. It is normal that instead of confrontation, tension, and chaos, we all want cooperation, peace, and progress. The problem is that this kind of politics is largely ungrounded. And it is ungrounded because it forgets who our neighbor to the East is. In other words, it overlooks who we are dealing with…
Turkey is not Denmark...
Η Turkey It is not Belgium, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Canada – and neither are we. The mentality of its leadership, the reactions of its people, the way it faces its history and dreams of its future are not similar to ours. For us, territorial claims are taboo. They have the borders of their hearts and the Blue Homeland. They consider the desire for expansion normal.
They lament from time to time because the Treaty of Lausanne left them with less territory than they deserve – in the West and the East. President Erdogan declared – seriously – on May 29 that there are elements left within them, desires for conquest. They have a long list of claims against Greece in the sea, in the air, in the defense equipment of the islands, in the Muslim minority of Thrace, etc. They recognize in international law only limited competence for the resolution of any disputes…
At a cultural level, Turks have learned to despise any submissive and conciliatory attitude on the part of their opponent. They even consider it as a waiver of any of their rights. On the contrary, they respect stability, consistency, clear words and of course they demand that you respect them too.
To the crucial question of how we can deal with this difficult and complex situation, of whether there is hope for cooperation with a difficult, expansionist and at times aggressive neighbor, the answer is yes – but under conditions. Yes, if our analysis is realistic, yes if we show stability and consistency. Yes, if they know what our red lines are. Yes, if we make it clear to them what we expect from them. Above all, yes, if they see before them a country with strong armed forces, with active and dignified diplomacy, a serious and determined state – one that does not provoke, but whose leadership is not afraid.
In two words: A peaceful future with Turkey, without a strong Greek deterrent capacity, without a determined and nationally consistent leadership, is not possible. Those who want dialogue, cooperation, peace, "calm waters", must immediately recognize that a realistic prerequisite for all of this is a consistent and multifaceted policy of deterrence.
Greek-Turkish: The real meaning of deterrence
Most of us understand deterrence as a primarily defensive capability, which, through the threat of retaliation, or generally armed force, discourages the adversary's aggression - due to the costs it would incur if it exceeded certain limits. This of course assumes that the deterrent must convince that it is determined to use its armed infrastructure and be clear about what the conditions are that would force it to resort to force.
However, deterrence does not need to be only armed. Greece is very right to use the deficit of its people to purchase weapons systems. Without them, national security is impossible. Furthermore, the need to revive the Greek military industry, following the brilliant example of the 70s, is imperative, with the aim of increasing economic viability, making defense programs as independent as possible, and modernizing our arsenal.
Story
Of course, these weapons that we buy and produce should be held by capable and determined executives. Above all, their potential use should be directed accordingly by determined leadership. Otherwise, it is a shame for our money, a shame for our efforts, a shame for the dreams of calm waters, peace, and cooperation.
As we said, deterrence neither needs nor should be solely military in nature. Senior officers are rightly taught that a country's defensive strength depends not only on its armaments and armed forces, but also on its international standing, its diplomatic presence, its prestige in international organizations, its defense pacts, and its Alliances. Even on its international economic power.
Very right, except who will direct all this? Who creates the climate in which military and diplomats operate? Who decides when we will say yes or no to the Council of Europe, NATO, the UN, the European Union? Who decides when we will denounce deviations, when we will take initiatives, when we will support proposals? Who decides when we will talk to our neighbors and what we will say to them? Obviously the political leadership. This leadership must believe in deterrence – and cultivate it.
What is Greece suffering from?
Greece, fortunately, we repeat, does not suffer from a shortage of executives. Those of us who spent decades of our lives in diplomatic offices, barracks, and staffs can attest to having worked with dozens of public servants, uniformed or not, who are worthy, trained, ethical, and of course patriotic. Greeks who, with dignity, with conscientiousness, with precision, can specialize and implement a consistent, multifaceted, systematic deterrent policy.
Story
But a similar leadership is necessary that knows how to say yes and no, that inspires respect in international friends and adversaries. A leadership that loves dialogue but is not afraid to interrupt it when necessary. That does not talk to pirates, especially while they are behaving like pirates...
Francis Verros
Source https://slpress.gr/ethnika/ellinotourkika-mipos-kati-exoume-parei-strava/?ref=storyteller
Photo shutterstock, https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/greek-maritime-aggressiveness-serves-no-one
