In the same vein, with a new pretext each time, Ankara is returning to the issue of gray zones in the Aegean . Following its reactions to the Greek spatial planning plan for Renewable Energy Sources and the escalation of airspace violations, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has this time turned to the Special Spatial Planning Framework for Industry of the Ministry of Environment.
In a post on the X platform, Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Oncu Keçeli attempts to challenge the Greek plan and directly re-introduces the question of Greek sovereignty over islands, islets and rocky islets. The plan, he argues, affects the issue of “geographical formations whose sovereignty has not been transferred to Greece through international treaties.” The Turkish official even calls on Greece to adopt an approach consistent with the Athens Declaration of Friendship and Cooperation.
In detail, he notes in his post.
“Regarding the Special Spatial Planning Framework for Industry and the Supply Chain announced by Greece.
The Special Spatial Planning Framework for Industry and the Supply Chain, announced today (August 28) by Greece in a manner that also covers the Aegean Sea, will have no legal effect for our country in the context of the interrelated Aegean issues between the two countries, including the geographical formations whose sovereignty has not been transferred to Greece through international treaties.
“On this occasion, as Turkey, we emphasize once again that we maintain our position that an approach consistent with the 2023 Athens Declaration on Friendship and Good Neighborliness should be adopted, and that we are always ready for cooperation with Greece as one of the two coastal states of the Aegean Sea.”
The statement is interesting in the way it is structured. Its first paragraph reiterates the established Turkish position on unclear sovereignty over parts of the Greek island complex, a position that Athens rejects in its entirety, considering that the status of the islands has been definitively regulated by international treaties. The second paragraph, on the contrary, speaks of friendship, good neighborliness and readiness for cooperation . The coexistence of the two in such a short text accurately captures the double line that Ankara is following in the current phase, maintaining a positive climate at the level of rhetoric and simultaneously restating its claims at every appropriate opportunity.
The choice of occasion is also characteristic. A spatial planning framework for industry is, in essence, a tool for internal development planning and not an act of international scope. Its invocation as a starting point for a diplomatic response shows that the aim is not the text itself, but the systematic recording of objections so as not to create an impression of tacit acceptance. This is a tactic with a legal background, as in international practice the failure to formulate an objection can, under certain conditions, be interpreted as tolerance.
On the Greek side, the standard response to such announcements remains firm. Sovereignty over islands, islets and rocky islets is not a subject of discussion, the so-called gray zones do not exist, and the only difference recognized for resolution is that of the delimitation of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone .
The question that remains open concerns the duration of the coexistence of these two lines. The climate of mild relations inaugurated with the Athens Declaration has yielded results in individual sectors, but has not touched the core of the differences. And as long as every Greek plan that includes the Aegean is accompanied by a corresponding Turkish announcement, the gap between the language of friendship and the content of the claims remains visible.
