In recent decades, the accumulation of failures in efforts to resolve the Greek-Turkish disputes seems to be a normal situation. A situation where everything is correct on “our side”, while the other side is always uncompromising and aggressive. Apart from the deadlock that often follows the unfavorable course of the Cyprus issue, “national correctness” imposes predetermined views and demonizes any alternative proposal, even if it is based on international law or represents established international practice. The pretentious mention of “national rights” by the defenders of “national truth” has only negative consequences for Greece.

The cultivation of fear, the perpetuation of false information, distorted assessments and the construction of various national myths lead to a firm rejection of any dialogue aimed at resolving differences in the logic of the common good. Conversely, self-righteous introversion fuels national insecurity, which in turn justifies bloated weapons programs that periodically overburden the economies of both states and endanger the development and prosperity of both peoples.

Many questions seem unresolved when they are not. In recent decades, the Turkish side has increasingly questioned certain aspects of Greek sovereignty, sometimes accompanied by verbal threats, while the Greek side has insisted on maximalist sovereignty claims for areas of dubious legitimacy (e.g. airspace, tendency towards unilateral delineation of EEZs). and EEZ).

Thus, confidences and beliefs were formed on both sides of the Aegean that “our side is (only) right.” However, this is not the case. There are two categories of irrational certainty: contesting the established and legitimate rights of the other side, and declaring their own sovereign rights on a shaky basis. Some of the assurances reproduced by the Greek side, as well as the Turkish side, are difficult to substantiate legally. On the other hand, the Greek public, like the Turkish public, is unlikely to question the confidence that all previous governments and media have cultivated. Who can ignore the fact that the recognition of phenomena in their true dimension and bilateral cooperation (or recourse to mediation or international justice) is a necessary condition not only for the resolution of disputes, but also for the use or preservation of common resources? For example, the effective decontamination of Aegean plastic can only be achieved through joint efforts, while the exploitation of fish and renewable energy sources can only be achieved through synergy. Indeed, in the new state of affairs caused by the climate crisis, cooperation is not an option, but a necessity for survival.

So what we’re after is (re)starting a dialogue in Greece on issues that really harm Greek-Turkish relations. Cancel the automatic call before the other party trusts, which undermines the chances of reaching an agreement. Promote confidence-building, since the most important condition for any form of dialogue aimed at a productive Greek-Turkish coexistence is mutual liberation from what poisons relations between the two countries, threatens peace, depletes natural resources and builds well-being. being their citizens.

Such an approach should break through the veil of Greek “national issues”. The following issues should be a priority on the Greek side, with the aim of finding solutions after honest dialogue and bilateral negotiations with Turkey (preferably bilaterally, without mediators or arbitrators), solutions that will be a positive sum, with two winners:

– Final demarcation of maritime boundaries (coastal zone).

– Delimitation of mining rights zones (EEZ, continental shelf).

– Delimitation of Greek airspace.

It is in Greece’s interest to pursue a sustainable policy for the future by obtaining consent based on international law at this critical turning point in Greek-Turkish relations.

Dialogue, agreements or the termination of unilateral claims on issues such as:

– Energy policy, synergy where possible (renewable energy sources). Dialogue on hydrocarbons.

– Environmental policy, synergy, especially in relation to the Aegean.

– Harmonization of policy towards minorities on both sides in accordance with European legislation.

– Agreement on the humanization of the management of the movement of refugees and migrants.

As for the Cyprus issue, the diplomatic capital offered to Cyprus by its accession to the EU has already been recklessly “lost”. It is necessary to discuss the conditions for dialogue and the prospects for meaningful coexistence of the two communities. Otherwise, the state of affairs leads to the final partition of Cyprus, thus confirming the results of the Turkish invasion.

In conclusion, as a democratic society, we have an ongoing pluralistic discussion in search of solutions aimed at mutual benefit. Indirect or direct cooperation involves the multiplication of profits for both parties. Double benefit – a common benefit, which will be based on the overall security and stability in the region. Thus, the implementation of a sustainable policy for the future by obtaining consent on the basis of international law is in the interests of Greece at this critical turning point in Greek-Turkish relations.

The recent earthquake in Turkey, apart from the great misfortune it caused, may deconstruct the tension rhetoric of recent years, as happened with the 1999 earthquakes. Perhaps it opens up an opportunity for effective rapprochement.

Mr. Alexis Iraklidis is an honorary professor at Panteion University. Mr. Andreas Stergiou is a professor at the University of Thessaly. Mr. Thodoros Tsikas is an international political scientist. Mr. Konstantinos Tsicelikis is a professor at the University of Macedonia.