In a move aimed at avoiding surprises and third-party initiatives on the Eastern Mediterranean and highlighting Greece’s firm position on resolving disputes through dialogue, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced from the floor of the Parliament the revival of an old proposal to create a forum of the Eastern Mediterranean countries to address issues ranging from migration and the environment to demarcation.

“Greece seeks understanding with all our neighbours, I repeat, with all our neighbours, with the rule of law and, in particular, the Law of the Sea as our compass. And it is our intention, in the coming period, to invite all the coastal states to a joint meeting, to a forum where we will be able to examine together all our concerns. Greece has absolutely nothing to fear from sitting at the table with anyone to defend its positions, always with the Law of the Sea as a reference point,” the prime minister said on Thursday, during a debate in Parliament on foreign policy.

Diplomatic sources clarified that the format would include Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Egypt and Libya with five themes: migration, protection of the marine environment, connectivity, maritime zoning and civil protection. The Greek Foreign Ministry “will undertake to explore the possibility and prospects of such a format and to what extent it could acquire permanent features.”

The idea for an Eastern Mediterranean Conference was originally put forward by Rep. Tayyip Erdogan, who set the conference’s objective as “fair sharing of the wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean”. In 2020, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, shortly after the incident and crisis caused by Turkey sending the Oruc Reis off the Castelores, reiterated this proposal, giving it a European “mantle”.

In fact, in September 2020, Michel, after having a round of contacts with the Greek government, which agreed with his proposal, as well as with Cyprus, Malta, then Chancellor Merkel, President Macron, and President Sisi, contacted President Erdogan by phone to present this proposal. Since then, there has been no follow-up, although Tayyip Erdogan himself often refers to his original proposal.

The reasons why such a conference has so far remained on paper are obvious and relate to: who will participate, what the framework and scope will be, and the question of the binding nature of the consensus and timelines.

Turkey, from the very first moment, has been demanding that the Republic of Cyprus be excluded from this Conference – something that obviously cannot be accepted. Cyprus is an independent EU member state, which cannot be “wiped off the map”, especially when it has concluded most of the delimitation agreements in the region, but also for practical reasons, as without Cyprus there can be no delimitations in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Equally unacceptable is the Turkish demand that the Pseudo-state should also participate, if the Republic of Cyprus is invited, as this would constitute recognition of the Pseudo-state and at the same time would give legitimacy to the illegal “delimitation agreement” signed by Turkey with the occupying regime, as well as to the illegal demarcation of land even south of the island, which the Pseudo-state has “ceded” to the Turkish company TRAO.

Apart from this, such a conference could not be convened without a clear commitment by all not only to international law in general, but also to the Law of the Sea, which is a “red flag” for Ankara, which insists that, as it is not a party to the treaty, it is not bound by it nor does it accept its provisions which are now customary law.

Moreover, as long as the political impasse in Libya continues, it is clear that the country cannot be reliably represented by either Eastern or Western Libya alone. At the same time, a problem will arise if the participation of the Palestinian Authority as a representative of the Palestinian State, which has already been recognized by Turkey, Egypt, and Libya, is supported.

Once the crucial question of who will participate in this Conference is resolved, the also delicate issue is in what form and under what conditions of bindingness the boundary talks will be held, and which of the existing agreements and arrangements will be considered acceptable. And of course, whether at the end of the road there will be provision – in the absence of agreement – for referral to an international mechanism such as the Hague Tribunal.

In any case, the scenarios that such a mechanism could help circumvent the problems that arise, such as those regarding the investigations into the laying of the Cyprus-Crete connection cable, are rather unrealistic, as the exercise of powers, such as the issuance of NAVTEX, does not belong to a “group” of states or a forum of states, but to each state individually, for its area of competence.

Turkey disputes the entire framework of the demarcation agreements between Cyprus and Israel and Egypt, and Greece and Egypt, while instead supporting the legitimacy of the Turkish-Cypriot memorandum, which Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Israel, and Syria (pre-Assad) have renounced.

Given these facts, it is not clear how a Conference on the Eastern Mediterranean could provide a way out of the impasse that has been the stumbling block for five decades in efforts to reach a delimitation with Turkey.
Of course, the timing of raising the issue for the Conference of the Eastern Mediterranean littoral countries is not coincidental.

Athens has every reason to show, in Brussels and especially in Washington, that it is not the one that pushes the “button” of tension in the Mediterranean, but, on the contrary, the one that seeks consensual solutions based on dialogue and the Law of the Sea. Nor is it trying to exclude Turkey, as Ankara often says, referring to an attempt to create an “anti-Turkish bloc”.

Indeed, as U.S. diplomacy and President Trump’s personal envoys have focused on the region because of their involvement in the Gaza ceasefire, Athens is seeking to register this willingness to resolve problems and outstanding issues.