Erdogan demands demilitarisation of East Aegean Islands, threatens operation in Syria

[Foinikas]

The text of this agreement was accepted and signed by the Greek state. Signature is the honor of a state.

Ignoring and eroding this undeniable legal basis is the only factor that threatens regional peace.

@jhungary You read this too

With regard to Turkish claims on the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands, it should be noted that:


• Turkey is not a signatory state to this Treaty, which therefore constitutes a "res inter alios acta" for Turkey; i.e., an issue pertaining to others. According to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not create obligations or rights for third countries.


• The demilitarized status of the Dodecanese islands was imposed after the decisive intervention of the Soviet Union and echoes Moscow’s political intentions at that point in time. It should, however, be noted that demilitarized status lost its raison d’être with the creation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as incompatible with countries’ participation in military alliances. Against this backdrop, demilitarized status ceased to apply to the Italian islands of Pantelaria, Lampedusa, Lampione and Linosa, as well as to West Germany on the one hand and Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Hungary and Finland on the other.

And to quote kathimerini:

After all, Turkey has for 57 years consistently and firmly consented – a fact which underscores its commitment – to the unquestionable sovereignty of the islands, since 1964 when it first made an issue of an alleged violation of the demilitarization obligation, thereby indicating in practice that sovereignty is not challenged.

Charlatan greek generals can dream of bombing the Istanbul Bridges in their wet dreams. They can even disrupt the peace if they wish, if they can afford the consequences.

And your nutcase politicians should learn not to provoke with such nonsense:

Not to mention your officers,talking on TV shows about "Greece occupying our islands". Hadi,budala askeri.

However, we never accept the claim that Turkiye is the revisionist and aggressive side, and we will not be a part of the dirty propaganda carried out over it.

Look who's talking about revisionism and "aggressive side"!

The country that made Mavi Vatan an official State policy!

Then you have THE NERVE to talk about "dirty propaganda!"

 

[jhungary]

Is NATO's Article 5 valid when the war is between two NATO states?

Didn't expressly say so

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

But 2 things you need to consider, that's Article 6 and 7

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 7​

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 6 lay out where the attack occur would lies within the responsibility of Article 5. Not sure how Greek Island counted in this state, because it specify Europe, North American on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; Now, if Turkey is standalone covered, then one can argue Greek Island (next to turkey) should be too, which mean it really depends on how those island being interpreted, because if they are see as Greece Mainland, then they are in Europe, and Article 5 applies, but if they are see as outlyer, then article 5 MAY NOT applies because those island is not in North Atlantic Area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

On the other hand Article 7 lay out that if the issue is for the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, then Article 5 also would not applies. Which mean if Turkey have a case and argue all the way to UN and win its case, article 5 would also not applies if UNSC direct Turkey to recover those island.

 

[dBSPL]

look, I am not taking Greek Side over Turkey, I know not enough about the situation to take one side over the other, What I was commenting on is the fact that if "Greek invoke Article 5"

On the other hand, violating a treaty does not give any country the right to attack another country, there are international court for that matter, seek a peaceful resolution first, then if all else failed, then talk about armed option.


The problem I see is, NATO also won't leave a member being under attack and leave it like that. Again, whether or not if Greek can apply Article 5 on this issue is a question in itself, but if that was invoked, I don't see how this can be done without physical intervention. Again, the core value of NATO is article 5, and if it was invoked and ignored, you may disband NATO. That's going to be the same if Greece invaded Turkey, I would see NATO physically intervene with Greece if that is the case.

So I guess we can agree to disagree with this.

You are not sincere. First of all, when you talk about the military alliance, you completely ignore the actions against the spirit of alliance and approach the issue from a very absurd point of declaring war. No, it will not be a declaration of war, the issue is a legal struggle. If you want to take up the issue in a military sense, there I gave you an anecdote. Paris and Lousanne Conferances... You didn't write any word about turning areas with clearly de-militarized status into military concentrations. However, you wrote messages in 2 different messages claiming that a whole NATO would intervene in favor of Greece within the scope of Article 5.

The rejection of the relevant articles of the peace agreements, the unilateral expansion of the territorial sea and national airspace over the territory of another country, if you do not see it as an example of aggression; Everything you write here is non-objective and mostly reflects what you want to see, not what is.

 

[Foinikas]

So ur reason is they have black sea so they cant have Aegean? By that logic greece also have the ionian sea to the west so should let go of Aegean. See how stupid is ur claim. Countries have a right to their continental shelf, u have the islands, u cant have the sea.

Your claim was stupid to begin with. "Turkey needs more sea". Why? Our islands are there. They can't have that sea. It's like saying "There's not enough room for Indians,we need Pakistani Punjab as well".

They can't have that part of the sea. It's ours. It's our motherland. And Turkey had no problem with from 1923 to 1973.

 

[jhungary]

You are not sincere. First of all, when you talk about the military alliance, you completely ignore the actions against the spirit of alliance and approach the issue from a very absurd point of declaring war. No, it will not be a declaration of war, the issue is a legal struggle. If you want to take up the issue in a military sense, there I gave you an anecdote. Paris and Lousanne Conferances... You didn't write any word about turning areas with clearly de-militarized status into military concentrations. However, you wrote messages in 2 different messages claiming that a whole NATO would intervene in favor of Greece within the scope of Article 5.

The rejection of the relevant articles of the peace agreements, the unilateral expansion of the territorial sea and national airspace over the territory of another country, if you do not see it as an example of aggression; Everything you write here is non-objective and mostly reflects what you want to see, not what is.

Read My Post above you.

As I said, I don't know enough the situation to know who's right and who's wrong in this situation. I know NATO charter, and I have explained on the other post why or how Article 5 may or may not applies given in given situation.

As I said before, if you really do think you have a case, you can try it on ICJ or UNSC/UNGA and seek a resolution. And if you win that case, then you can recover those island legally and nothing will be able to stop you, not the American, not NATO.

However, if you are talking about unilateral action of invasion and ignore international norm, then what do you really expect me to say? Even if I tell you NATO will not intervene, would you believe me??

I mean, it may seems hard or insincere for you, but then I am merely commenting on what I think is the correct interpretation of Article 5. You may not have the same interpretation than mine. And if you think because of that I am Pro-Greece, then I am sorry you think that way.

 

[Foinikas]

Turkiye is capable of taking control of these Islands even if they are militarized by the Greeks. Turkiye is just looking for an excuse to start the war. This is the best time to start the war and expand the Turkish influence. US & Euope are busy with Ukraine war and are begging Turkiye to approve Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

You actually want Turkey to start a war and expand?

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary You read this too

With regard to Turkish claims on the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands, it should be noted that:


• Turkey is not a signatory state to this Treaty, which therefore constitutes a "res inter alios acta" for Turkey; i.e., an issue pertaining to others. According to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not create obligations or rights for third countries.


• The demilitarized status of the Dodecanese islands was imposed after the decisive intervention of the Soviet Union and echoes Moscow’s political intentions at that point in time. It should, however, be noted that demilitarized status lost its raison d’être with the creation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, as incompatible with countries’ participation in military alliances. Against this backdrop, demilitarized status ceased to apply to the Italian islands of Pantelaria, Lampedusa, Lampione and Linosa, as well as to West Germany on the one hand and Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Hungary and Finland on the other.

And to quote kathimerini:

After all, Turkey has for 57 years consistently and firmly consented – a fact which underscores its commitment – to the unquestionable sovereignty of the islands, since 1964 when it first made an issue of an alleged violation of the demilitarization obligation, thereby indicating in practice that sovereignty is not challenged.


And your nutcase politicians should learn not to provoke with such nonsense:

View attachment 853022

Not to mention your officers,talking on TV shows about "Greece occupying our islands". Hadi,budala askeri.


Look who's talking about revisionism and "aggressive side"!

The country that made Mavi Vatan an official State policy!

View attachment 853023


Then you have THE NERVE to talk about "dirty propaganda!"

This seems like something My wife would be interested to read. She is a working International Law Lawyer...

 

[TNT]

Your claim was stupid to begin with. "Turkey needs more sea". Why? Our islands are there. They can't have that sea. It's like saying "There's not enough room for Indians,we need Pakistani Punjab as well".

They can't have that part of the sea. It's ours. It's our motherland. And Turkey had no problem with from 1923 to 1973.

I never said Turkey needs more sea, u r retarded and have comprehension problems. Turkey have a right on it because of continental shelf and law of seas. See how stupid u sound when u say that sea is part of ur motherLAND.
First u say Turkey have black sea so should not claim Aegean and now u say its part of ur motherland, all stupid and dumb excuses. And again, just coz Turkey was silent in those decades, doesn't make it urs, another stupid excuse.

 

[Oublious]

Greece’s right to militarise Limnos and Samothrace was recognized by Turkey, in accordance with the letter sent to the Greek Prime Minister on 6 May 1936 by the Turkish Ambassador in Athens at the time, Roussen Esref, upon instructions from his Government. The Turkish government reiterated this position when the then Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rustu Aras, in his address to the Turkish National Assembly on the occasion of the ratification of the Montreux Treaty, unreservedly recognized Greece’s legal right to deploy troops on Limnos and Samothrace, with the following statement : “The provisions pertaining to the islands of Limnos and Samothrace, which belong to our neighbor and friendly country Greece and were demilitarized in application of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, were also abolished by the new Montreux Treaty, which gives us great pleasure” (Gazette of the Minutes of the Turkish National Assembly, volume 12, July 31/1936, page 309). During the same period, Turkey gave similar assurances on this subject to the governments of interested third countries.

The status of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Ikaria



The Lausanne Treaty makes no mention of these islands having been granted demilitarized status.


The Greek government simply commits to not establishing naval bases or fortifications there in accordance with Article 13 of the Treaty. More specifically, this article specifies that :


“With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:


• No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.


• Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.


• The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory”.

The Status of the Islands of the South-Eastern Aegean (the Dodecanese)

The Dodecanese islands were ceded to Greece in full sovereignty by the Paris Peace Treaty between Italy and the Allies in April 1947. The provisions of this Treaty provided for the demilitarization of these islands: “The above islands shall be demilitarized and shall remain so”. There is a National Guard presence on the Dodecanese islands, which has been declared in accordance with CFE provisions.


With regard to Turkish claims on the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands, it should be noted that:


• Turkey is not a signatory state to this Treaty, which therefore constitutes a "res inter alios acta" for Turkey; i.e., an issue pertaining to others. According to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not create obligations or rights for third countries.


Well there you go:

View attachment 853005

View attachment 853004


You dropped the ball. Can't have it two different ways,just like your foreign policy.

a lot of bs wroten, the treaty is clear and all of your claims are irrelevant. You can add but if, that, this, how and he/she. You can not arm them....

 

[Foinikas]

I never said Turkey needs more sea, u r retarded and have comprehension problems. Turkey have a right on it because of continental shelf and law of seas. See how stupid u sound when u say that sea is part of ur motherLAND.
First u say Turkey have black sea so should not claim Aegean and now u say its part of ur motherland, all stupid and dumb excuses. And again, just coz Turkey was silent in those decades, doesn't make it urs, another stupid excuse.

You make it sound that Turkey should have more sea. That's why I told you,they have enough see already. You sound as if they are landlocked ffs!

Check every map in the original post and read the details on the bottom of each one. Maybe you'll understand what's the deal.

 

[The SC]

 

[Foinikas]

a lot of bs wroten, the treaty is clear and all of your claims are irrelevant. You can add but if, that, this, how and he/she. You can not arm them....

Did you read the text? It shows why we can arm them.

Your claims are irrelevant.Because your government relinquished any right on the islands and let us do as we like. Read the fucking text.

 

[Oublious]

Did you read the text? It shows why we can arm them.

Your claims are irrelevant.Because your government relinquished any right on the islands and let us do as we like. Read the fucking text.

the agreement allow you not to arm them but gendarmerie, you will need that for security and not a army. You made a treaty honor it or face the problems you cause.

 

[Foinikas]

the agreement allow you not to arm them but gendarmerie, you will need that for security and not a army. You made a treaty honor it or face the problems you cause.

Did you read the text? Can you read English?

The only one who is making problems out of it,is Turkey. And specifically the Erdoğan government. We had no problems about it since 1923. It all started with your buffoonish leaders' sudden demands about it.

 

[Oublious]

Did you read the text? Can you read English?

The only one who is making problems out of it,is Turkey. And specifically the Erdoğan government. We had no problems about it since 1923. It all started with your buffoonish leaders' sudden demands about it.

A gendarmerie (/ʒɒnˈdɑːrməri, ʒɒ̃-/) is a military force with law enforcement duties among the civilian population.


Now stop arming the islands, honor the treaty.

View attachment 853027

These islands are not Greece, the Italians left the islands and gived greece the island with not permissions of Turkey. So the status of that island belongs to Turkey. We will take it back....

We will put a end to that stupid Greece claims....