Good morning, friends!
Diplomacy is not conducted in front of open microphones. Nor is a government obliged to inform the public about every phone call, sound-out or negotiation behind closed doors. But when negotiations touch on the exercise of sovereign rights, their outcome cannot remain in the dark.
And the Greece–Cyprus cable is now shrouded in deep darkness.
Hakan Fidan was exceptionally clear yesterday. Turkey, he told Ta Nea, does not oppose survey work for the GSI. But it wants the vessel to provide written notification, describing the work and giving the coordinates. He explained why: to avoid changing the status quo and setting a precedent.
He added something even more significant: the issue had been discussed with Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Emmanuel Macron, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan had also raised it with the Greek prime minister in New York.
So there was a discussion. We do not know exactly what was discussed.
A few hours later, Giorgos Gerapetritis said categorically that there is no coordination with Turkey over the cable-laying. He made clear that permission had been sought only from Greece, and that only Greece would grant it. He added, however, that after Greece had issued its authorisation, notification of the survey work and cable-laying “could” be given, provided it did not amount to an authorisation process by another party.
This, though, is where things get complicated.
Nexans, the French contractor for the cable system, has categorically denied having had or planning any contact with the Turkish authorities. It says it coordinates exclusively with the project’s operator and the Greek and Cypriot authorities.
Meanwhile, Meridiam’s entry has given the GSI a stronger French dimension, while the survey vessel Abeille Marengo, which is intended for the work, also flies the French flag.
So the question is simple: if Turkey wants written notification, Athens leaves open the possibility of providing it, and Nexans says it will not contact the Turkish authorities, who will inform Ankara?
Athens, Paris or someone else? And, more importantly, what will that notification say? This is no mere play on words. Athens may call it “notification” and Ankara “coordination”. What matters is what process will have taken place by the time the survey vessel is east of Kasos and Karpathos, and what legal significance each side will be able to attach to it the following day.
Fidan himself explained why this matters. He said he did not want a precedent to be set.
Nor do we, presumably.
If the survey vessel carries out its work without seeking Turkish permission, Greece will have exercised in practice the jurisdiction it says it has.
But if a process takes place first that Ankara could later cite as proof that coordination with it is required, the cable may be laid, but it will have left something far more important on the seabed: a precedent.
That is why the public is entitled to know. Not the contents of every secret diplomatic contact, but the terms on which the rights the government itself says the country possesses will be exercised.
The question takes on greater significance when, on the same day, Fidan again raises the issue of the 12-nautical-mile limit and Gerapetritis says that “Greece will extend its territorial waters” when and how it chooses.
The continental shelf and territorial waters are, of course, different legal matters. But they share a common political denominator: the exercise of rights that Athens says derive from international law. So what prevents Greece from extending its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles south and west of Crete? According to the government’s own statements, there is no legal obstacle. It is a matter of “manner and timing”. Fair enough. But that is precisely why clear information is required.
The government has every right to conduct behind-the-scenes diplomacy to prevent a crisis, and a duty to protect peace. It cannot, of course, negotiate in public. But who will inform the Greek people about the terms on which their country’s sovereign rights are exercised — or their exercise postponed?
Behind-the-scenes diplomacy is part of diplomacy. But sovereign rights cannot be part of the behind-the-scenes process.