The geopolitical value of maritime spatial planning

Dr. Konstantinos Balomenos

Political Scientist – Internationalist

It is the first time that Greece, through this MSP, has obtained a complete text that is institutionalized in the European Union (EU) and depicts on maps the uses, activities and boundaries of the maritime zones and the Greek continental shelf.

The publication of the National Spatial Strategy for the Marine Space (NSSMS), which specifies and maps the Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) of Greece, undoubtedly constitutes a strategic move of historic importance for Greece. It is the first time that Greece, through this MSP, has obtained a complete text that is institutionalized in the European Union (EU) and maps the uses, activities and boundaries of the maritime zones and the Greek continental shelf, giving full influence to the mainland with the islands (including islets and rocky islets).

As the former Director General of Defense Policy of the Ministry of National Defense, who represented the Ministry of National Defense during the consultation on the drafting of the Strategic Plan for the Armed Forces, I express my satisfaction with the publication of this strategy. At the same time, I must express my warm congratulations to all the officials of the competent ministries who worked on its completion, as well as to the political leadership of the country for the coordination of this effort.

The ESSTHX, in addition to determining human activities in the marine waters of our homeland and their future spatial development and the environmental, economic and developmental benefits that will arise, also has great geopolitical value.

Specifically, for the first time, Greece maps and clearly formulates in an official EU text the boundaries of its maritime space (maritime zones, continental shelf, etc.), giving full effect to all island and continental coasts of the country. In particular, with the effect given to Kastelorizo ​​and Strongyli, the eastern limits of the Greek continental shelf are adjacent to the western limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus, so that Greece and Cyprus have common maritime boundaries. This fact is of the utmost national importance, because for the first time, what the “Charter of Seville” states (which provokes strong reactions from Turkey) for the definition of maritime jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean are enshrined in an institutional European text.

For information, the Seville Charter depicts the EEZs of the EU member states based on the 1982 Law of the Sea and clearly records the connection of the Greek and Cypriot EEZs. This Charter does not constitute an official EU document, but the fact that the Greek MSP will reflect in an official European institutional text what the specific Charter states, legitimizes it and gives it legal and political force for the EU. This development also affects the Greek-Turkish dialogue since, in his statements to CNN Turk (17-9-2020), Mr. Melvout Çavuşoğlu set as a prerequisite for the start of a Greek-Turkish dialogue that Greece announce that it does not accept the Seville Charter.
How does it affect Greek-Turkish relations?

In this light, the ECCC changes the data in Greek-Turkish relations and what has been in force to date in relation to the Greek-Turkish dialogue. Greece for the first time explicitly redefines its positions and formulates a new strategic approach to its national interests in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, in accordance with international law and redefines the agenda of the Greek-Turkish dialogue. The basis for discussion now for the resolution of the Greek-Turkish dispute on the delimitation of the continental shelf and the EEZ will be in accordance with the Greek Spatial Planning and not in accordance with Turkey’s novel positions.

In this context, the ECMS will be the basis for discussion on any issue or dispute that may arise between Greece and its neighboring countries. What the ECMS states also follows last year’s national success, where the PLATFORM Maritime Spatial Planning website, in the context of the formation of its European Maritime Spatial Planning, published a map with the Greek EEZ, which fully justified the Greek positions, provoking a strong reaction from Turkey. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Greek ECMS in an official EU document clearly defines and specifies not only the Greek, but also the European maritime borders. Consequently, the Greek-Turkish dispute over the delimitation of maritime borders and the exploitation of their resources is also transformed into a dispute between Turkey and the EU.

This development also marks the explicit European recognition of the Greek narrative and clear support for Greece’s just positions, in relation to the stakes of the Greek-Turkish confrontation in the Aegean. For the sake of truth, it is a maximum national justification that in a European institutional text, what is defined in the Greek ECSC in relation to:

The limits of the continental shelf, which are defined as in the Greece-Italy Agreements of 1977 and 2020,
The limits of the EEZ, which are defined as in the Greece-Egypt Agreement of 2020,
The limit of the territorial sea which is determined in accordance with applicable national legislation, the 1926 Greece-Turkey Protocol, the Italy-Turkey Agreement and the 1932 Protocol, with the general reservation for an extension of the width to 12 nautical miles, in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which reflects customary international law.

In the same context, the MSP strengthens national positions on Greece’s maritime zones by granting international legitimacy to Greece, since the same process that Greece followed for its delimitation was followed by other EU states, without any international state or non-state actor being challenged. In addition, the maritime spatial planning ensures practical European support for Greece in relation to its energy investment projects (e.g. laying of a submarine cable for the electrical interconnection between Greece and Cyprus) and the challenge of Turkey’s role in the region.

The National Spatial Strategy for the Maritime Space also directly concerns activities related to the country’s defense and security, since it is noted that activities aimed exclusively at defense and national security, including search and rescue, have priority over all other activities at sea. It also outlines the areas where military activities will be carried out (firing and exercise ranges, mine warfare areas, submarine exercise areas, etc.), which are located within the spatial units. The above regulation is of key importance for national defense and security, because it increases the footprint of the Greek Armed Forces in the Southeastern Mediterranean and their role as a Pillar of stability and security and, at the same time, it guarantees the international and European character of the Greek maritime space.

The issuance of the EEZ also follows the recent successful moves of the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Kyriakos Mitsotakis, in relation to Greece’s agreement with the American giant Chevron. Just as the start of marine research South of Crete by Chevron de facto recognizes the Greek EEZ and essentially nullifies the Turkish-Libyan memorandum, so the issuance of the EEZ also nullifies the Blue Homeland. The Greek government chose to issue the EEZ at a time when the well-known ultra-patriots of the lentil movement within Greece are criticizing the Greek Prime Minister and the Greek Foreign Minister for giving in to Turkey and are talking about suspending the work of the Greece-Cyprus-Israel electrical interconnection off Kasos, due to threats from Turkey.

However, developments refute them and expose them once again, showing that they do not know and do not understand both the moves of Prime Minister Mr. Kyriakos Mitsotakis and the current foreign policy of Greece. This choice proves that Prime Minister Mr. Mitsotakis and Greece did not suspend and are not going to suspend the electrical interconnection works between Greece and Cyprus, due to Turkey’s threats. They decided to make a strategic maneuver and to respond to Turkey’s reactions and threats with a purely aggressive diplomatic move, speaking in terms of real deterrence (and not empty verbalizations), putting a fait accompli on Turkey and sending the message that Greece is not going to retreat from defending and asserting its national and sovereign interests in the Southeastern Mediterranean region. Turkey’s reaction to these developments indicates its embarrassment. Turkey comes second in relation to the MSP. It has nothing official to show to defend the Blue Homeland and proceeded to a response through the newspaper Milliyet where it presented a supposedly scientific study defining the Turkish MSP. The announcement of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, however, is embarrassing and devoid of substance.
Why it is a strategic move of historical importance

Specifically, Greece’s action to issue the ECLA is not unilateral, but is part of the framework of covering its European obligations and was based exclusively on the rules of the Law of the Sea of ​​1982, as Turkey did accordingly in the Black Sea (without accepting the rules of the Law of the Sea). The determination of the boundaries of a country’s maritime zones is a matter of national sovereignty and does not constitute a unilateral action. Turkey has done the same. Therefore, it is not legitimate to speak of unilateral actions. Turkey’s threat also that it will submit its own Plan to UNESCO and the competent UN bodies is without substance and does not carry any legal impact against Greece. For the sake of truth, Article 2 of Chapter 1 of the UN, in paragraph 7, states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require Members to submit such matters to settlement in accordance with the terms of the present Charter. This principle, however, shall not prevent the application of the enforcement measures provided for in Chapter 7.”

Chapter 7 of the UN refers to acts of threat against the Peace, Breach of the Peace and Acts of Aggression. From this perspective, the question that arises is who is talking about a violation of international law? Turkey, which does not respect the sovereignty of the only recognized state, the Republic of Cyprus, and seeks to legitimize its invasion of Cyprus through the recognition of the pseudo-state as an independent state? In conclusion, the issuance of the ECLA constitutes a historically important strategic move for Greece, where it exerts intense pressure on Turkey and accelerates the process of talks for the delimitation of maritime zones in the Aegean Sea not on the basis of the Blue Homeland, but on the basis of the Greek ECLA, where it defines the maritime borders not only of Greece, but also of Europe. This move, finally, increases Greece’s negotiating power and redefines the Greek-Turkish relationship in the region.

Source – ETHNOS