Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is to be Done?

  • Chapter
The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean

Part of the book series: New Perspectives on South-East Europe Series ((NPSE))

  • 376 Accesses

Abstract

The Aegean dispute is a complex conflict involving sovereignty, sovereign rights, natural resources (oil), freedom of transit, freedom of airspace, access to islands and ports, national security and other tangible interests. Undoubtedly, these are vital matters of national interest. However, they are not necessarily the main issues at stake.1 And this clash of interests is not the one that has made the conflict intractable. What has made a settlement impossible from 1973 until today is the subjective dimension: the huge barrier created by a mutual utter lack of trust. Both parties are absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their side and of the wrongdoing of the adversary, who is bent on changing the status quo in the Aegean. Another basic obstacle to a resolution process is the domestic factor: governments are immobilised by the sheer dread of the potential domestic cost, of being seen as giving in to the adversary, with the opposition and the public at home all too ready to cry that a sell-out is afoot. On many occasions, weak or populist governments have fanned the flames of animosity, with long-term consequences.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. As Andrew Wilson had rightly concluded three decades ago. See Andrew Wilson (1979/1980), ‘The Aegean Dispute’, Adelphi Papers, No. 155 (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies), p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., pp. 1–2, 13, 27, 29; Richard Clogg (1983), ‘Troubled Alliance: Greece and Turkey’, in Richard Clogg (ed.), Greece in the 1980s (London: Macmillan), pp. 124–5, 128, 131

    Google Scholar 

  3. Theodore A. Couloumbis (1983), The United States, Greece, and Turkey: The Troubled Triangle (New York: Praeger), pp. 124–30

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aurel Braun (1983), Small-State Security in the Balkans (London: Macmillan), pp. 237–43

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. A.J.R. Groom (1986), ‘Cyprus, Greece and Turkey: A Treadmill for Diplomacy’, in John T.A. Koumoulides (ed.), Cyprus in Transition, 1960–1985 (London: Trigraph), pp. 147–8, 152

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tozun Bahcheli (1990), Greek-Turkish Relations since 1955 (Boulder: Westview), pp. 129–30, 152–4, 192–3

    Google Scholar 

  7. Richard Haass (1990), Conflicts Unending: The United States and Regional Disputes (New Haven: Yale University Press), pp. 59–64

    Google Scholar 

  8. Monteagle Stearns (1992), Entangled Allies: U.S. Policy Toward Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press), pp. 134–44.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Soli Özel (2004), ‘Turkish-Greek Dialogue of the Business Communities’, in Taciser Ulaş Belge (ed.), Voices for the Future: Civic Dialogue Between Turks and Greeks (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press), pp. 163–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maria Ververidou (2001), ‘I ellinotourkiki oikonomiki synergasia: provlimata kai prooptikes’ [Greek-Turkish Economic Cooperation: Problems and Prospects], Agora horis Synora [Market without Frontiers], 7, 1, pp. 4–7

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dimitris Tsarouhas (2009), ‘The Political Economy of Greek-Turkish Relations’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9, 1–2, pp. 45–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Constantine A. Papadopoulos (2009), ‘Economic Cooperation: Guarantor of Détente or Hostage to Politics?,’ in Othon Anastasakis, Kalypso Aude Nicolaidis and Kerem Öktem (eds), In the Long Shadow of Europe: Greeks and Turks in the Era of Postnationalism (Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 296–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Charles Pentland (1975), ‘Functionalism and Theories of International Political Integration’, in A.J.R. Groom and Paul Taylor (eds), Functionalism: Theory and Practice in International Relations (London: University of London Press), p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  14. As the late ambassador Tzounis (the negotiator on the Greek side on the continental shelf issue in the second part of the 1970s) has put it, the two sides should embark ‘on an honest dialogue’ that will’ separate reality from fiction … the real and permanent interests of both sides from the false problems and the sick ambitions hidden under the cover of unlimited nationalism and screaming patriotism’. See John Tzounis (1990), ‘Greek-Turkish Relations’, in A. Th. Symeonides (ed.), European Security in the ‘90s. Papers of an International Conference (Athens: FOPSE), p. 218.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ali Çarkoğlu and Kemal Kirisçi (2005), ‘The View from Turkey: Perceptions of Greeks and Greek-Turkish Rapprochement by the Turkish Public’, in Ali Çarkoğlu and Barry Rubin (eds), Greek-Turkish Relations in an Era of Détente (London: Routledge), pp. 117–53

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hercules Millas (2005), The Imagined ‘Other’ as National Identity (Ankara: Social Society Development Programme, Turkish-Greek Civic Dialogue Project), pp. 64–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Monteagle Stearns (2001), ‘The Security Domain: A U.S. Perspective’, in Dimitris Keridis and Dimitrios Triantaphyllou (eds), Greek-Turkish Relations in the Era of Globalization (Herndon: Brassey’s), p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Theodore A. Couloumbis and Louis J. Klarevas (1998), ‘An Outline of a Plan Toward a Comprehensive Settlement of the Greek-Turkish Dispute’, in Vangelis Calothychos (ed.), Cyprus and its People: Nation, Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community, 1955–1997 (Boulder: Westview), p. 130.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Byron Theodoropoulos (1988), Oi Tourkoi kai emeis [The Turks and Us] (Athens: Fitrakis), p. 325.

    Google Scholar 

  20. As the late ambassador Zeki Kuneralp had argued. See Zeki Kuneralp (1999), Sadece Diplomat. Anιlar-Belgeler [Simply a Diplomat. Memoirs-Documents] (Istanbul: ISIS), p. 270.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lewis Coser (1956), The Functions of Social Conflict (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul)

    Google Scholar 

  22. For an excellent overview of the functions of conflict, see C.R. Mitchell (1981), ‘Evaluating Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research, 17, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hercules Millas (2004), ‘National Perception of the “Other” and the Persistence of Some Images’, in Mustafa Aydιn and Kostas Ifantis (eds), Turkish-Greek Relations: The Security Dilemma in the Aegean (London: Routledge), p. 53

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., pp. 53–4. See also Alexis Heraclides (1980), ‘Socialization to Conflict: A Case Study of the Ingroup-Outgroup Images in the Educational System of Greece’, The Greek Review of Social Research, 38 Resolution: Golbal; and Heraclides (2004), ‘The Greek-Turkish Conflict: Towards Resolution and Reconciliation’, in Aydιn and Ifantis, op. cit., p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vamιc D. Volkan (1988), The Need to Have Enemies and Allies (Northvale: Jason Aronson), pp. 17–59, 99–105 and passim

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vamic D. Volkan and Norman Itzkowitz (1994), Turks and Greeks: Neighbours in Conflict (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press), pp. 1–12. See also Thalia Dragonas (2003), ‘Mirror Representations of National Identity: Greece and Turkey’, Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology (Istanbul, 20–27 June, in print), pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mustafa Aydιn (1997), ‘Cacophony in the Aegean: Contemporary Turkish-Greek Relations’, The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 28, p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Şükrü S. Gürel (1993), Tarihsel Boyut Içinde Türk-Yunan Iliskileri, 1821–1993 [Turkish-Greek Relations from a Historical Dimension] (Ankara: Ümit Yayincilik), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Şükrü S. Gürel (2003), ‘Turkey and Greece: A Difficult Aegean Relationship’, in Canan Balkir and Allan M. Williams (eds), Turkey and Europe (London: Pinter Publishers), p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hercules Millas (2002), Do’s and Don’ts: For Better Greek-Turkish Relations (Athens: Papazissis, 2002), pp. 55–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Renée Hirschon (2003), ‘“Unmixing Peoples” in the Aegean Region’, in Renée Hirschon (ed.), Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Exchange of Populations Between Greece and Turkey (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books), p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bruce Clark (2006), Twice a Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey (London: Granta Books), pp. 12–14 and passim.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ernest Renan (1904) [1878], ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?’, in Discours et conférences (Paris: Calmann-Levy), pp. 284–5.

    Google Scholar 

  34. For similar presentations, see Millas op. cit., pp. 119–20; Millas, ‘History Writing among the Greeks and Turks: Imagining the Self and the Other’, mimeo; Dragonas, op. cit., pp. 4–5, 7–8; Yiannis Papadakis (2005), Echoes from the Dead Zone: Across the Cyprus Divide (London: I.B. Tauris), p. 14–5.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hercules Millas (2009), ‘Yparchei i Tourkia mas?’ [Does our Turkey Exist?], Kopilates, 3 (autumn), p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stathis Gourgouris (1996), Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization, and the Institution of Modern Greece (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 268; Dragonas, op. cit., p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vassos Argyrou (2006), ‘How Greeks Think: About Turks for Example’, South European Society and Politics, 11, 1, pp. 35–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stéphane Yerasimos (1988), ‘Les rapports Gréco-Turcs. Mythes et réalités’, in Semih Vaner (ed.), Le différend Gréco-Turc (Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan), pp. 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Iver B. Neumann (1999), Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 39–63.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Millas, ‘History Writing among the Greeks and Turks’, op. cit.; Stephanos Pesmazoglou (1993), Evropi-Tourkia. Ideologia kai ritoria [Europe-Turkey: Ideology and Rhetoric] (Athens: Themelio), pp. 382–3.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Alexis Heraclides (2001), I Ellada kai o ‘ex anatolon kindinos’ [Greece and the ‘Danger from the East’], (Athens: Polis), p. 73. Turkish edition: (2002) Yunanistan ve ‘Dogu’dan Gelen Tehlike’ Türkiye [Greece and the ‘Danger from the East’ from Turkey], (Istanbul: Iletişim), pp. 70–1.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thanos Lipowatz (1991), Ziümata politikis psychologias [Issues of Political Psychology] (Athens: Exantas), pp. 268, 281; Pesmazoglou, op. cit., p. 383

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nicos Mouzelis (1994), O ethnikismos stin isteri anaptyxi [Nationalism in Belated Development] (Athens: Themelio), p. 43

    Google Scholar 

  44. Constantine Tsoukalas (1999), ‘European Identity and Greek National Identity’, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 1, 1, p. 302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Anna Frangoudaki and Thalia Dragona (eds) (1997), ‘Ti einai ipatrida mas?’ Ethnokentrismos stin ekpaidefsi [‘What is our Fatherland’? Ethnocentrism in Education] (Athens: Alexandria)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Efi Avdela (2000), ‘The Teaching of History in Greece’, Journal of Modem Greek Studies, 18, pp. 239–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. For the Sèvres syndrome, see Kemal Kirisçi (2006), ‘Turkish Foreign Policy in Turbulent Times’, Chaillot Paper, No. 92, Institute for Security Studies (Paris), pp. 32–8; Hakan Yιlmaz (2006), ‘Two Pillars of Nationalist Euroskepticism in Turkey: The Tanizimat and Sèvres Syndromes’, in Ingmar Karlsson and Annika Strom Melin (eds), Turkey, Sweden and the European Union (Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies), pp. 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sofos and Özkιrιmlι, op. cit., p. 35. See for more details Jacob M. Landau (1995), Pan-Turkism: From Irredentism to Cooperation (London: Hurst and Company), pp. 74–224

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hugh Poulton (1997), Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent: Turkish Nationalism and the Turkish Republic (London: Hurst and Company), pp. 92–167.

    Google Scholar 

  50. In this regard, there is a revealing (and amusing) passage in foreign minister Çağlayangil’s memoirs. In one of his meetings in the late 1960s with his Greek counterpart, Panayiotis Pipinelis (a revered figure in the Greek foreign policy establishment with whom Çaglayanğil was on excellent terms), the Turkish foreign minister complained that the Greek schoolbooks were starkly anti-Turkish and imbued with the notion of Greater Greece. Pipinelis is said to have replied as follows: ‘Look we are not going to get back tin Poli [Constantinople] by giving our pupils these books to read. And even if we wanted to you of course would not give it to us. If we mobilised to try to get it by force, our power would not suffice. You are least five times our size. We simply want to imbue the youngsters with a national ideal for them not to transgress into unwanted paths. An ideal is an aim which moves away when you come close to it. It makes people run after it. Allow us to dream. It amounts to chimeras’ (my translation from Greek to English). In the Greek version of the memoirs of Ihsan Sabri Çaglayanğil (2001), Oi Anamniseis mou [My Memoirs] (Athens: Potamos), p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  51. As Çaglayanğil has put it in his memoirs. See Ihsan Sabri Çaglayanğil (1990), Amlarιm [My Memoirs] (Istanbul: Günes Yayιnlarι), p. 335.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hoseyin Isiksal (2002), ‘An Analysis of Turkish-Greek Relations from the Greek “Self” and Turkish “Other” Perspective: Causes of Antagonism and Preconditions for Better Relationships’, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 1, 3, pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  53. In an experiment held during the Cold War, American soldiers, duly infused with the notion of the Soviet threat and the stereotype of the despicable Soviets/Russians, were asked to listen to Soviet English-speaking radio. When asked their opinions after several days of listening, they came out with a more positive image of the Soviets than previously, obviously because the original image of the other side was so extreme. See Don D. Smith (1973), ‘Mass Communication and Image Change’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, pp. 116–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Carl Schmitt (1932), Der Begriff des Politischen (Munich: Duncker & Humbolt).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Panajotis Kondylis (1997), ‘Epimetro stin elliniki ekthosi: geopolitikes and stratigikes parametroi enos ellinotourkikou polemou’ [Postscript to the Greek Edition: Geopolitical and Strategic Parameters of a Greek-Turkish War], in Theoria tou polemou [Theory of War] (Athens: Themelio), pp. 381–411. For a detailed rebuttal of Kondylis’s geopolitics of war against Turkey, see Heraclides, I Ellada kai o ‘ex anatolon kindinos’, op. cit., pp. 127–61, and in its Turkish edition, pp. 127–60.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Şükrü Elekdağ (1996), ‘2½ War Strategy’, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 1, 1, pp. 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Steven Forde (1992), ‘Classic Realism’, in Terry Nardin and David. R. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 62.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. See Irving Janis (1972), Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Millin).

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Robert Merton (1948), ‘The Self-Fulfilling Prophesy’, The Antioch Review, 8, pp. 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. For a first presentation of such a four-pronged strategy for attitude change in conflict situations, see Alexis Heraclides (1989), ‘Conflict Resolution, Ethnonationalism and the Middle East Impasse’, Journal of Peace Research, 26, 2, p. 206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece

    Alexis Heraclides (Professor of International Relations and Conflict Resolution)

Authors
  1. Alexis Heraclides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2010 Alexis Heraclides

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heraclides, A. (2010). What is to be Done?. In: The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean. New Perspectives on South-East Europe Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283398_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation