S. PAPAIOANNOU: We signed the EEZ agreement with Italy. Would you like to give us a little background? Because we heard that it was a real struggle up to the last minute and the negotiations lasted a long time.
N. DENDIAS: That’s right. These were very long negotiations, many months, and there were ups and downs. You might be interested to know that we hadn’t reached an agreement on Friday afternoon, or even Sunday afternoon. We had some differing views that kept us from moving ahead. But in the end, this agreement was based on a different approach than that taken in the past, avoiding an impasse. What was this impasse? To try to combine two different things. Fisheries and the extension of our territorial waters – in other words, the exercise of our sovereignty in the text of the agreement. The separation of these two things – which are different in nature, as fishery policy is up to the European Union, not to go into legal details – allowed, from the outset, for texts based on which we could work. And in the end, we overcame great difficulties and managed to come to an agreement that we were able to sign in Athens, the next day. In other words, we reached an agreement on Monday evening. I called the Prime Minister at around 22:30.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: For Greece, what is the actual success of this agreement, and how will this manifest itself in the future?
N. DENDIAS: First of all, if you look at the line on the map between Greece and Italy, Greece has grown, as I always say. Our rights were extended. Beyond that, a European country is agreeing to recognise international law and the effect of islands, just as Greece did. In other words, it accepted international law as it exists and is in force. You’ll ask, isn’t this obvious? Unfortunately, in our region it isn’t obvious. There are other countries around us that have completely different interpretations. They claim, for instance, that islands have no maritime zone, no continental shelf, no exclusive economic zone – not even Crete, which is one of the largest islands in the Mediterranean. So, the fact that Greece gets for the first time an exclusive economic zone based on international law, as interpreted by the vast majority of the countries in world, is by itself extremely important.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Are you also thinking of extending territorial waters to 12 nautical miles in the Ionian?
N. DENDIAS: The country has a right deriving from the hard core of its sovereignty, to extend its territorial waters. As to when this happens, this is a matter of policy. This is completely within our rights. And indirectly, this agreement we signed with Italy recognises this right. In other words, Italy accepted that – not only in the Ionian, but also in the Aegean and the Libyan Sea – Greece has every right to extend its sovereignty to 12 nautical miles, and it’s asking Greece, the owner of this right, for permission to fish in these waters when Greece exercises this right.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: We saw some statements from the opposition, that we may not have got the effect we wanted for certain small islands in the Ionian. And we saw Mr. Cavusoglu, in Turkey, say that this agreement was a success for Turkey’s positions. How do you respond to that?
N. DENDIAS: I’ll tell you. First of all, let’s talk about what was said here at home. I think most of the opposition parties, with the exception of the extreme or ultraright, maintained an excellent stance. They completely supported the agreement, realising the obvious: that this is an agreement that serves the national interest. It doesn’t serve the interest of the Mitsotakis government or New Democracy. And it is an agreement that many, many people have been working towards for many, many years. Forty-three years. The fact that no one reached an agreement earlier, doesn’t mean that there weren’t efforts, and it doesn't mean that the incentive wasn’t the necessary national incentive.
Now, on the other hand. The claims of not complete effect of the two small islands seem a little comical to me, if I may say so. Why? Because this agreement is a balanced agreement. Just to give you a sense of the percentages, we’re talking about 0.0019% of the expanse under the agreement. That’s what we’re discussing about now. And while Greece is ceding this 0.0019% at the two extreme points of the small islands, it is getting it back in the centre of this expanse. So, it is getting the same total area. It is choosing – it chose in 1977, under the Konstantinos Karamanlis government – to agree on the line of its continental shelf from then. This creates no problem and no negative legal precedent. In fact, it creates an extremely favourable legal precedent for Greece. And anyone in the country who says otherwise, well, I think they know the truth, so I think they are intentionally distorting things, making a mistake and serving ulterior interests.
Now I come to Mr. Cavusoglu. Mr. Cavusoglu, as you know, is a friend of mine. We’ve known each other for many years. So, I would tell him, as an old and good friend, that if he finds this agreement to be to Turkey’s liking, then we can negotiate based on the rules of this very agreement. Effect for islands, continental shelf for islands, exclusive economic zones for islands. This is what Greece has been arguing all these years. And Turkey pretends not to hear it. So, I would be the happiest of people if this agreement became the door through which Turkey passes to international legality. And if, in this space, in the space of international legality, it can meet with Greece.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Hearing you, I think that maybe, in the end, there is a new approach you are serving and that the country would do well to serve as well – for there to be some compromise in the agreement. For so many years, due to certain maximalist positions, the country couldn’t conclude agreements on EEZs. Is this perhaps a new approach?
N. DENDIAS: Greece is not a maximalist country. I’m not saying that there aren’t certain maximalist circles in Greece. Of course, there are extremists in Greece, just like there are extremists everywhere. But Greek governments always served the national interest. And not the national interest in some abstract space, but based on international legality and the resolutions of the UN. Greek policy has always been firmly anchored. If Turkey wants to meet with us – again, in this space – no one would be happier than Greece. We will all be extremely happy about this. Because we don’t want to cheat Turkey; we don’t want to take anything from Turkey that belongs to Turkey. We don’t want to limit Turkey. We don’t want to exclude Turkey from the sea. But we have absolutely no intention of ceding our national rights to Turkey. So, we ask Turkey: “Would you like to come and find a solution based on the rules of international law and the Law of the Sea? That’s great. ”But not based on the thinking, for example, that islands don’t have exclusive economic zones, don’t have a continental shelf, don’t have anything but 6 nautical miles of territorial waters”. No, that’s not a basis for discussion.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Let’s look at Egypt now.
N. DENDIAS: Let’s.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: What would you consider to be a satisfactory result from your visit to Egypt?
N. DENDIAS: For the two sides’ views to have converged. Egypt and Greece are friendly countries. Egypt is a country that, under President Sisi’s leadership, sees and reads the reality of the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider region in the same way Greece reads it. Whether this be Libya, the Gulf or Yemen. In the wider region, with Egypt, we view things in similar ways. So, here we have a difference of opinion. We have to divide a maritime area. Again, we don’t want to take anything from Egypt that doesn’t belong to us. And we would like Egypt to view the matter in exactly the same way. Conceding to Greece whatever belongs to Greece under international law. I have to tell you that these aren’t easy talks. There were 12 rounds of talks that didn’t reach an agreement, but there can always be a new beginning and a new effort. That’s what I’m hoping for.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Is the Ministry considering a partial delimitation with Egypt? In other words, delimitation that doesn’t include the contested strip with Kastelorizo?
N. DENDIAS: Kastelorizo is not a contested strip. Egypt has no particular ....
S. PAPAIOANNOU: With Turkey, I mean.
N. DENDIAS: I’m not certain, and Egypt has never said this, but I assume Egypt doesn’t want to get involved in an issue that doesn’t directly concern it. What would we like? We would like complete delimitation. Understandably. Why want partial delimitation when we can have complete delimitation? Egypt, on the other hand, as I explained, has expressed a view that differs from what we would want. We'll see. If a partial delimitation is in Greece’s interest, if this partial delimitation is carried out and there is an agreed procedure for completing the delimitation, it might be something we want to look at in terms of the details and decide accordingly. So, we would prefer to get the whole delimitation. We would take partial delimitation if it were under satisfactory conditions.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: And aren’t you concerned about this – that by excluding the effect of the Kastelorizo complex from a delimitation with Egypt you might ...
N. DENDIAS: I think we have exceptional legal experts in the Special Legal Service and outside advisors. I think I’ve also learned enough over these months, studying at the Ministry, so we know how to make an agreement in a way that doesn’t damage the national interest, but promotes it. In any event – not just us, not just the Mitsotakis government – no Greek government will ever sign something that compromises the future of our country’s sovereignty and sovereign rights. We want to make the country bigger and improve its position. We don’t want to make it smaller and weaken it.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Are there indications that Turkey is moving to block an agreement with Egypt?
N. DENDIAS: I can’t say I have solid examples of such efforts. But, I have clear indications that Turkey proposes things to all of the countries Greece talks to. It proposes things that are most often outside of international law, with a maximalist approach to concessions. Because, of course, when Turkey gives away something that doesn’t belong to it, it is extremely generous. If we’re going to share out your property, I would be very generous in distributing that property of yours in any way a third party would like. This is what Turkey does.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: So, you mean they are saying to Egypt: “We’ll give you ...
N. DENDIAS: … 30% more, 25% more than what Greece would give you.” It does this. But, of course, it doesn’t do this based on international law, but on the basis of a Turkish fabrication that in reality doesn’t hold water. Because, these are maritime expanses to which Greece has a right. Turkey offers things that don’t belong to it.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: And what's going to happen with Libya? With the Turkey-Libya agreement?
N. DENDIAS: The Turkey-Libya agreement is simply null and void. With a serious government in Libya, Greece will return to the table and find a solution. With the current administration, which is completely under Turkey’s orders, things are quite difficult. After all, they deceived us! I talked to them. I had discussions with Siala, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in New York in September, because we knew these talks were taking place. He assured me, face to face, that this would never happen. But, in a state of complete weakness and being blackmailed by Turkey, they were forced to sign these two null and void agreements.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: We saw the Prime Minister say that any move or claim Turkey makes in the Aegean will have it facing the European Union and not just Greece. Does this mean something? Do you have assurances from the European Union that they’ll take appropriate action in a .....
N. DENDIAS: I’ll give you the latest statement from the Council, which finds that the agreement between Libya – the Sarraj administration – and Turkey is completely null and void. The European Union has taken a series of decisions, not in favour of Greek positions – it’s wrong to see it that way – but in favour of the positions of international law. So, we believe, and the Prime Minister was very right to say this, that the European Union – a unique endeavour in human history, based on the logic of application of the law and human rights – will defend and protect exactly what it was created for. International Law.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: How are you thinking of responding to Turkey’s threat that, at some point, it will send a survey ship to carry out seismic surveys? In other words, there are two possibilities: Either they’ll enter the Greek continental shelf or they might not enter, ‘greying’ some area by coming close.
N. DENDIAS: The Turks – and lots of media – use this ‘greying’ concept. I’m not prepared to accept it. Just because Turkey makes a claim, it doesn’t necessarily mean this changes the colour on the map or the law’s outlook on a specific islet, a specific maritime expanse. If we implemented Turkey’s ‘colour pallet’, about half the Mediterranean would belong to Turkey, or something like that. I think they’re dreaming that even Suleiman the Magnificent was “modest” in his demands and that they should have reached all the way to Gibraltar, so that the maritime expanse could correspond to Turkey’s greatness, as perceived by a portion of the Turkish deep state. Because, there are also very serious forces in Turkey that are opposed to all of these things, and they see Turkey as a serious country that is a candidate for participation in Europe, either as a member of the EU or as an affiliated country. But this means adopting the mindset of these states. The Prime Minister said this as well. I have said this from the outset. If Turkey thinks it can get ahead through gunboat diplomacy, it’s making a big mistake. Whether these gunboats are real or disguised as peacekeeping vessels. This policy will not help Turkey at all. And we have a constitutional duty to defend the national interest and our national rights. And we can do nothing less. As I always say, there is a specific article in the Constitution. When a government takes office, it swears and oath of faithfulness to the Constitution and laws. We will perform our constitutional duty to the fullest. We don’t make threats or talk big or wave banners or strike up anthems. But we do tell the Turks to be extremely careful. And not cross the boundaries of international law.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Are you concerned? I think people in general are concerned. In other words, they see activity, provocations on the part of Turkey. They say they’re going to send survey vessels. Do you think there’s any reason for concern?
N. DENDIAS: I can’t blame public opinion when it has to deal on a daily basis with conduct that is provocative at the very least. But, what I must say to Greek society is that its government, as well as the political system as a whole, will do its duty in the best possible way to protect the national interest and, at the end of the day, the future of this society. We don’t wish for tensions. Greece doesn’t want tensions, and Turkey is wrong to want them. It’s a flawed model. I said this earlier. Turkey – in my humble opinion; I may be wrong – has to be taken to a completely different model. Ataturk was smart enough to chart the future course of the then nascent Turkish state: a secular state oriented towards the west and the western mindset and the western style of organization. He was not at all naive. Quite the opposite. And he took a Turkey that was heavily injured from the First World War and transformed it into a serious country. And what is it that is forcing Turkey to change course now? I don’t understand it.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: That’s what I wanted to ask. The question may sound naive, but what is it that, throughout all these years, has kept Greece and Turkey from reaching an agreement on the Aegean?
N. DENDIAS: Objectively, there is no obstacle. Objectively. But for there to be a solution, both sides have to agree on a framework of rules that will enable them to resolve the dispute. All disputes are resolved on the basis of certain rules. They aren’t resolved through ‘might makes right’ or the demands of one side. They are resolved based on rules. We always say this. I don’t think there is anything blocking our way. Absolutely nothing. And I sincerely hope that we see this happen. To find a solution.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Is there a channel of communication with Turkey?
N. DENDIAS: There are always channels of communication. But, for the channels of communication to work right, they can’t be used just to convey monologues. Then they don’t yield results.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: In other words, these meetings that have been taking place for years, the exploratory talks, are they still happening? Or have they stopped?
N. DENDIAS: Right now, we aren’t in exploratory talks. Which is Turkey’s fault.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: What does this mean in practice?
N. DENDIAS: It means it would be good for them to start again, but for them to start again, we can’t have Turkey provoking us every other day. We can’t have Turkish overflights of Greek territory. We can’t have Turkey announcing offshore fields 6 miles east of Crete. What is there to talk about?
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Do you think we should expect migrant flows through Turkey over the summer?
N. DENDIAS: I witnessed something I didn’t think I would: Turkey using migrants, refugees, to create problems in the European Union and in Greece. Exploiting human suffering. I must say I never thought a country would do something like that, but we saw it happen. So, we have to be prepared for everything.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: And you, Minister, when you leave this ministry, what would you like to leave behind? In other words, what would be your dream, or what was your goal when you took office?
N. DENDIAS: Allow me to say, in all modesty, that there is already a legacy; it is the country’s – not mine or the Ministry’s. I am referring to the Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement (MDCA), the defence agreement with the United states, and the agreement with Italy on maritime zones. I won’t hide the fact that I would be very, very happy if we could also reach an agreement with Egypt. I don’t dare hope I’ll see an agreement with Cyprus and all the countries. I say this so we can include Turkey. Maybe that would be even beyond my dreams.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Is it easy with Cyprus? Because if it’s easy, why hasn’t it happened all these years.
N. DENDIAS: Because we’re doing everything in a certain order. It isn’t something that can’t be done. Throughout the years – not just during my time at the ministry; I’ve been here for 11 months – there is a logical order. We started with Albania. There was an agreement that was nullified by the Albanian constitution. This doesn't mean we’ve stopped. We’ll come back to it. I think we’ll resolve it. The agreement with Italy, which concerned a very large expanse. The effort with Egypt. Beyond that, I think things will be easy with our Cypriot brothers.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Is there anything that keeps you up at night? Something that concerns you?
N. DENDIAS: I think people in a public position are kept awake at night when they think there might be a problem for their country. But let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
S. PAPAIOANNOU: Good luck in Egypt.
N. DENDIAS: I’d like to thank you very much for this opportunity.
June 18, 2020