The gift of history, geography, and minor hallucinatory blindness

Kemalists and neo-Ottomans have similar views on Cyprus. As can be seen from their own texts, they are aware of the geopolitical parameters of the issue, and therefore have a geographical strategy, in contrast to the petty Greek blindness that dominates Athens. In my previous article, I explained the Kemalist point of view with the words of Turkish officials. Today, I am quoting from the Ottoman New Testament based on Davutoğlu’s book”strategic depthI compare it to the geopolitical blindness of micro-hellanicity.

The former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkey is very clear: «Cyprus, which occupies a central position in the world in terms of approximately equal distance from Europe, Asia and Africa, is located with Crete on an axis where the water arteries intersect. Cyprus … is also home to a fixed base and an aircraft carrier capable of controlling the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions and the waterways of Aden and Hormuz, the two main waterways connecting Eurasia and Africa. Its strategic location cannot be overlooked…

“A country that neglects Cyprus cannot have a decisive say in world and regional politics. It cannot be effective in global politics, because this small island occupies a position that can directly influence the strategic links between Asia and Africa and Europe and Africa and Europe and Asia… It has become clear that the central position that this region occupies in terms of its energy hubs will be in the future the basic parameter of global competition…

»In this context, the Cyprus issue is not an ordinary Turkish-Greek ethnic issue and is not just a chronic Turkish-Greek conflict. Turkey, which occupies a position directly affected by all these balances, is obliged to evaluate its Cyprus policy outside the limited framework of Turkish-Greek relations. The Cyprus issue is rapidly becoming a Eurasian issue, the Middle East and the Balkans (West Asia and East Europe). The policy regarding Cyprus must be set in a new strategic framework, according to the new (international) strategic framework that has already been established.

»The importance of the Cyprus issue from Turkey’s point of view can be studied mainly on two main axes: the first stems from Turkey’s historical responsibility in strengthening the security of the Turkish Muslim community on the island, which is an axis of a social nature… The second important axis of the Cyprus issue is the importance of the geographical location of the island from a geostrategic point of view. The hub itself is vital no matter what human element is there. Even if there was not a single Muslim Turk, Turkey had to maintain the Cypriot cause. No country can remain indifferent to such an island located in the heart of its vital space».

Minor cochlear blindness

The meaning of the above – rather lengthy academic formulas – is simple: the geopolitical importance of Cyprus is so great (when Davutoglu wrote his book, no energy deposits were discovered in the Cypriot EEZ) that whoever controls it, or sets foot in it, gains a valuable advantage. As the architect of the new Ottoman foreign policy wrote very characteristically, even if there was not a single Turk in Megalonizos, Turkey had to create the Cyprus problem!

It is important to contrast the Turkish outlook (Kemalistism and neo-Ottomanism) with the geopolitical blindness of micro-Hellenicism, precisely the Greek ruling elites. The centuries-old Hellenic presence in Cyprus is a valuable gift of history and geography, which qualitatively raises the overall geopolitical importance of the Greek factor.

Instead of seeing it that way, in Athens, they are used to seeing it as a problem, a burden! kind of perceptionsCyprus is far away“,”Greece must get rid of the Cypriot burden” And “Now that we have joined the Republic of Cyprus in the European Union, we have paid off our debt from the 1974 coup and now Nicosia can go its own way.»!

The reason why the Greek ruling elites have adopted such a stance is not only due to geopolitical platitudes. This is also due to their traditional dependency syndrome, which often causes them to prioritize conforming to the policy of foreign “protectors” over serving vital national interests. Thus, the necessary participation of the “national center” in Cyprus turned into interventions that instead of defending the Hellenization of Cyprus and integrating it into the national essence, paralyzed it and at the same time inflicted severe damage on Greece’s prestige and international standing.

Unified Defense Space

The only exception was the policy of Andreas Papandreou’s governments. In the 1980s he tried to replace the principle of “Cyprus decides and Greece stands by” with the principle of “alignment of the joint decision”. Later, in the 1990s, it adopted the Unified Defense Zone doctrine, in an effort to integrate Free Cyprus into the Greek defense umbrella. As is known, Simitis allowed this doctrine to deteriorate.

Turks tell us with words and deeds what Cyprus represents from a geopolitical point of view. However, this is also shown by Israel, which has painfully realized how important the security factor is in controlling the umbilical cord that connects it to the West. The road connecting it to Europe must be permanently open. A few years ago there was no problem. On the southern shores of the eastern Mediterranean, a collaborator Egypt ruled in full. The northern coasts were under the control of Türkiye, with which Israel entered into a strategic relationship.

Things began to change when Erdogan opened a front with the Jewish state to promote his neo-Ottoman vision. The break with Turkey reminded the Israelis that the geopolitical game in this region is decisively influenced by religious and cultural criteria. This is the crucial geopolitical reason they turned to the Greek factor.

The overthrow of the Mubarak regime and the electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood added to the uncertainty and reinforced the Israelis’ conclusion about the inherent instability of their arrangements with Muslim countries. The fact that the army later overthrew President Morsi gave them relief, but did not change their conclusion.

Israel, Cyprus and Triangles

The Israelis discovered once again the value of free Cyprus and Greece as a safe route to the West for their national security. This is how the tripartite cooperation appeared, with which Greece essentially returned to the eastern Mediterranean. This happened on the initiative of Israel and Greece responded to the opening, because he also received the blessings of the Americans.

Then Egypt was added in a parallel triangle, then the Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and finally Lebanon were added. The bitter truth is that for decades Greece has barricaded itself in the Aegean Sea. In fact, the Turks made her lock herself in retaliation to defend their initiative to open a front in the Aegean Sea.

The discovery of natural gas deposits added to the geopolitical and geo-economic dimension. The tripartite partnerships in the eastern Mediterranean implicitly but clearly attempted to rearrange the geopolitical and geoeconomic balances in the crucial maritime region that connects three continents. To be precise, it was a potential strategic change, one that indirectly but clearly isolated Turkey.

Unfortunately, developments have taken a different turn. Realizing the danger, Erdogan changed course. He began to open up and was able to restore his relations with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, which in fact underestimated the importance of the tripartite partnerships. And all this in the context of an energy crisis, exacerbated and almost permanent by the war in Ukraine. Therefore, it is clear that the importance of the Eastern Mediterranean may increase further.

As I mentioned above, Cyprus is the crucial first strategic step on Israel’s path to the West. Thus, the worst development for the Israelis is for all of Cyprus to come under Ankara’s control and much more to leave. In practice, this means that Israel, like Egypt – despite the normalization of its relations with Ankara – are potential allies of Hellenism in preventing such a development. Provided that Nicosia and Athens move in this direction. A term that, unfortunately, has been proven by facts to be far from an axiom …