• Turkey's recent proposals to Greece have been rejected by Greece in a letter sent by Mr. Pangalos to the Turkish Foreign Minister.
• In this letter, dated 20 February 1998, Greece rejected all the Turkish proposals.
• Greece has therefore once again turned down a historic opportunity to settle all the Turkish-Greek differences through peaceful means.
• This reply demonstrates once again that Greece does not wish to settle these problems at all due to reasons peculiar to itself.
• In its reply, Greece solely reiterates its longstanding position and brings no new element to resolve the Aegean problems in a constructive and creative manner.
• The arguments raised by Greece in this letter to refuse the Turkish proposals only prove that Greece lacks political will and determination to address the Aegean problems with a view to resolving them through peaceful means.
• Turkey's views on the Greek arguments raised in Mr. Pangalos' letter are as follows:

1. The delimitation of the continental shelf issue and other Aegean problems:

The Greek position that there is only one problem in the Aegean which is the delimitation of the continental shelf is a blatant distortion of the realities. Today, there are several interrelated problems in the Aegean which Turkey wishes to resolve peacefully. Existence of more than one problem in the Aegean is very well known and acknowledged by the world public opinion. In fact, the very existence of these other problems is the main reason for the tense and dangerous situation in the Aegean. Denying this reality does not help defusing the tension between the two countries.

2. Mutual identification of the Aegean problems:

In the Greek reply, the Turkish proposal to mutually identify the Aegean problems has been rejected.

Turkey favours to resolve all the Aegean problems through peaceful means of settlement based on mutual consent. In fact, this approach has been confirmed by both countries through the Madrid Declaration.

For this purpose, Turkey does not exclude any means of peaceful settlement that will be mutually agreed by both countries. Therefore, Turkey and Greece should jointly decide on the appropriate means of settlement for each problem without leaving any of these problems unresolved.

Identifying the problems should be the first step of such a peaceful dispute settlement process.

This is totally compatible with the international practice and reflects a general trend in the world for resolving disputes peacefully.

3. International Court of Justice

In its reply Greece indicates that Turkey should accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

According to the status of the ICJ, the most common method to refer a dispute to the ICJ is to work out an agreement between the parties to that dispute. In order to recourse to the ICJ in such a way, the recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in advance is not required. In fact, even some EU members namely, France, Germany, Italy and Ireland have not yet recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. As to the position of Greece, it introduced a reservation to the jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1993 which prevents Turkey to bring some Aegean problems to the Court.

If Greece really wishes to be open to judicial settlements, it should first lift its reservation and be consistent with its arguments.

Concerning Turkish position on this matter, we do not rule out any means of peaceful settlement for the Aegean problems. Turkey's proposals that were clearly expressed in 1996 are still valid.

Therefore, Turkey believes that the first step should be to identify the problems between the two countries and to work out mutually agreeable means for their peaceful settlement.

If this preliminary step is not worked out, the longstanding and interrelated Aegean problems can not be promptly addressed, and the issues would remain unresolved.

Therefore, we expect Greece to approach positively to Turkey's proposal and identify the existing Turkish-Greek problems as a first step. This is imperative if Greece sincerely wishes to embark on a process of peaceful settlement to resolve all outstanding issues.

4. Madrid Declaration:

In its reply, Greece also turns down Turkish proposal to formalize the Madrid Declaration. Since this Declaration embodies important principles which should be respected unreservedly by both counties and since Greece has declared several times that it abides by these principles, it is difficult to understand why Greece refrains from formalizing this Declaration.

5. Confidence Building Measures in the Aegean:

Greece does not give a concrete reply to the Turkish proposal regarding the acceptance of all CBMs which, if implemented, will reduce the tension in the Aegean.

The Turkish proposal on this issue was intended to reach a firm commitment by both countries to develop and mutually implement the CBMs as an integrated whole in collaboration with the Secretary General of NATO.

Therefore, Turkey expects Greece to reaffirm its readiness to fully implement all the CBMs (those enumerated in the 1988 memoranda as well as those proposed by Mr. Solana) without opting for selective or "a la carte" approaches such as only proposing to implement the moratorium on the military exercises during summer months while continuing in the meanwhile intercepting and harassing the Turkish military aircraft in the international airspace of the Aegean.

Turkey believes that such a mutual confirmation by both countries will pave the way for establishing an environment of confidence between Turkey and Greece and thus defuse the existing tensions in the Aegean.

If Greece cannot commit itself politically and clearly to the full implementation of the CBMs, it would be tantamount to opting for the continuation of tension in the Aegean. Greece then would have no justification to ask the implementation or an extension of a moratorium in the Aegean in the future.

6. The Wisemen

In its reply concerning the meeting of the Wisemen Group, Greece associates the meeting of this Group with the EU and accuses Turkey of having brought the Wisemen Process to a stalemate.

This argument is a distortion of realities and only aims at misinforming the world public.

The contribution of the EU Presidency to the Wisemen procedure so far has been no more than a facilitating role and is confined to exchanging the letters between the Group members.

Activating the Wisemen procedure solely depends on the willingness of Turkey and Greece rather than the EU involvement as has been evident in the attitude of Greece since May 1997.

It is the uncompromising attitude of Greece that has prevented the Group to hold its meetings since May 1997 contrary to what has been agreed as its mandate.

The Greek reply on this matter once again demonstrates that Greece is not willing to activate the Wisemen procedure. If its intention is not to block this process, Greece should declare clearly that it accepts the referral of all problems between Turkey and Greece to the Wisemen Group so that they can be reviewed and recommendations on their solutions could be discussed.

7. Holding a meeting between the two ministries:

Greece also refuses the proposal for a high-level meeting of Turkish and Greek foreign ministry officials.

Greece claims that such meetings have always been held by ministers of the two counties, and they would continue in the future.

This does not reflect the reality. What Turkey proposed to Greece was to hold a specific meeting to discuss those problems to be identified by both countries with a view to finding appropriate means of settlement for each, one of them. Secondly, Turkey proposed to hold this meeting between the senior officials of the two foreign ministries other than the Ministers themselves.

Turkey does not deny the usefulness of meetings between the Ministers. But it is evident that Ministers when they meet in the margins of international meetings such as the one proposed by Mr. Pangalos in May, may not have enough time for such a dispute settlement process unless they meet only for this purpose.

Turkey still believes that a high level meeting should be organized as soon as possible and in any case before May in order to work out an agreement to resolve all existing disputes over the Aegean.