Table of Contents
The basis of Turkey’s discomfort lies in the argument that the EU has no jurisdiction over maritime jurisdictions and that it is not right to express an opinion.
Turkey argues that the borders determined on the maps go against its own interests and sovereign rights.
The EU Commission adopted the Maritime Spatial Planning directive in 2014 to ensure the sustainable growth of maritime economies and the sustainable use of marine areas and resources.
The Commission’s website on the subject includes where these countries are in the process of Marine Spatial Planning and maps created with information obtained from various sources.
Maps about Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, which prompted Turkey to respond, were published in this context.
It is noted that these maps have recently been updated.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs accepted this matter in a written statement made on November 16, saying, “We would like to remind you that the EU does not have the authority to comment on maritime jurisdiction disputes between sovereign countries . “The fact that the EU is a party and an instrument of such initiatives makes it difficult to solve the problems,” he said.
Türkiye and Greece, whose problems arise from the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, experienced serious tensions in 2019, and Brussels sided with Greece in this process.
The EU, which defined the drilling activities that Turkey wanted to do in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as illegal, decided to impose sanctions on Turkey.
Turkey emphasizes that the EU has no right to make any judgment or give an opinion regarding the maritime license issue between two sovereign states.
The map of Cyprus also drew a response
According to the information provided on the site, Greece has not yet approved a maritime spatial plan that will be valid in its territorial waters.
The Republic of Cyprus has created and approved its own maritime spatial plan.
On the map, the territorial waters under Turkish administration in the north of the island were also defined as the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
Turkey argues that Turkish Cypriots also have rights in this region.
In the statement made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was said that “The maps used for the Aegean and the Mediterranean in this study are void and have no effect on Turkey, and have no de facto or legal consequences.”
The Ministry confirmed that “necessary warnings were given and all measures were taken to protect rights.”
Only Ankara recognizes Turkish administration in the northern part of the island of Cyprus.
Another factor that Ankara draws attention to regarding this latest development is the timing.
In the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “It is not possible to accept unilateral actions regarding areas of maritime jurisdiction. “Such efforts will undermine efforts to achieve a comprehensive, fair and sustainable solution to the interconnected Aegean problems.”
Referring to the normalization process between Ankara and Athens with these statements, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the step taken by the EU Commission could have a negative impact.
Reminds me of a map of Seville
Another map crisis occurred between Ankara and Brussels on this issue as a result of the document known as the Map of Seville.
In the early 2000s, the EU commissioned academics Juan Luis Suárez de Vivero and Juan Carlos Rodríguez Mateos from the University of Seville to conduct a study to resolve the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) dispute between Turkey, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The map that led to Turkey’s response draws the continental shelf of Greece according to the borders of the Greek islands, regardless of how close they are to Turkey.
Accordingly, the continental shelf of Greece, which starts from Meis Island, extends south to the middle of the Mediterranean and does not allow Turkey to leave except for the Gulf of Antalya.
Türkiye accepts the territorial water rights of islands such as Meis, but notes that it does not create maritime sovereignty in the context of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Regarding the map, which caused a big reaction from Turkey, the EU Commission made a statement: “External reports prepared by institutions are not official EU reports and have no legal or political value to the EU. “
It should be noted that the current map on the Greece MDP page is drawn in a similar way to the Map of Seville.
Standardization steps are ongoing
Turkey and Greece continue an important normalization process, thanks to the dialogue they have developed in the last two years.
It is known that at the meeting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece Georges Gerapetritis in Athens on November 8, the officials of the two countries discussed the conditions for solving the problems arising from the Aegean and the Mediterranean Sea.
The parties are aware that, although they have deep disagreements even on the definition of the problems, they are determined to take steps to continue the process.
Senior officials from the Foreign Ministries of the two countries will meet in Athens on 2-3 December.
They are expected to discuss these issues at the meeting.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis is expected to come to Turkey to attend the High Level Cooperation Council meeting, which is expected to take place in January or February.
Aegean problems are also expected to be discussed during the meetings between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Mitsotakis.
**Section 1: Turkey’s Discomfort with the EU’s Maritime Planning Directive**
Thank you for providing me with this article. As the website editor for world-today-news.com, I have prepared the following questions for my guests about the information presented in the article:
**Section 1: Turkey’s Discomfort with the EU’s Maritime Planning Directive**
1. Can you explain Turkey’s objection to the Maritime Spatial Planning directive adopted by the European Union? How does it conflict with their understanding of maritime jurisdiction and sovereignty?
2. In your opinion, does the EU have the authority to comment on maritime jurisdiction disputes between sovereign countries, or do these matters fall solely within the purview of the countries involved?
3. What are the potential implications of the EU’s actions on the ongoing negotiations between Turkey and Greece regarding their disputes in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean? Can you envision a scenario where the EU’s stance on this matter could lead to further escalation or resolution of the conflict?
**Section 2: The Map of Cyprus and Its Implications**
4. The Republic of Cyprus has created and approved its own maritime spatial plan, including a map that defines territorial waters under Turkish administration in the north of the island as its own. How does Turkey view this action by the Republic of Cyprus? What are the potential consequences of such a map for the larger conflict over Cyprus’ maritime rights?
5. The EU’s recent update of these maps has drawn criticism from Turkey. How might these updates affect the ongoing negotiations between Ankara and Brussels regarding the conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean?
6. The Map of Seville, commissioned by the EU in the early 20000s, has also been a source of contention between Turkey and the EU. Can you provide more context about this map and its relevance to the current discussion over maritime boundaries?
**Section 3: The Ongoing Normalization Process Between Turkey and Greece**
7. Despite the ongoing tensions over maritime issues, Turkey and Greece have engaged in a dialogue and taken steps towards normalization. What are some of the key accomplishments or challenges in this process thus far?
8. Do you believe that the senior-level meetings
